Preamble

The House, met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill,

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Bill.

Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways Bill,

Westminster City Council (Cleveland Street Infirmary) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW WRIT

for the County of Anglesey, in the room of Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS, deceased.—[Mr. Griffiths.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

POSTAL DELAYS.

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that letters from the Ruhr district in Germany now take sometimes as much as a week or nine days to reach this country; if he will explain the reason for such delay; and whether the Foreign Office can take any action to expedite transit upon which business largely depends?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy) on the 19th instant.

COLLECTION OF DEBTS (HAGUE CONVENTION).

Mr. LEACH: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the second Peace Conference at the Hague agreed to a Resolution forbidding the use of force by one State against another for the collection of debts; that France and Britain were parties to it; and if, at the Conference in Paris of January last, the attention of the French Government was directed to this Resolution?

Mr. McNEILL: The Convention which the hon. Member has in mind referred to "the recovery of contract debts claimed from the Government of one country by the Government of another as being due to its subjects or citizens," and cannot be held applicable to the present case. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

COMMISSION OF CONTROL.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government has asked His Majesty's Government if Great Britain is disposed to associate herself with measures designed to enforce the terms of the Versailles Treaty dealing with the disarming of Germany, and the operations of the Commission of Control; and whether, in view of the independent French action on the Ruhr, His Majesty's Government will refrain from instructing General Bingham to co-operate with the Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then General Bingham is co-operating on the Commission of Control at the present moment?

MILITARY GUARANTEE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of the pact of military guarantee of France has been raised unofficially or officially
since tie occupation of the Ruhr between His Majesty's Government and France; and, if so, will it be made clear without delay that no such pact will be entered into by this country without the cooperation of America?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise.

FRENCH TROOPS.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 102.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if there are any black troops in the British-occupied zone?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The answer is in the negative.

BRITISH TRADE.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I asked your leave to put a question to the Prime Minister by private notice. I am afraid in sending you the question I failed to make it clear to you that it had reference to a very urgent matter, which will be seriously prejudiced if the question is delayed until Monday. In these circumstances, I beg your leave to ask the question now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's question only reached me shortly before the sitting of the House. I must be satisfied that it comes within the Rules, and I cannot now accept it.

Captain BENN: Very serious financial interests are involved in the question, which I will not refer to because that would be improper, but I submit, in the circumstances—the Prime Minister knows the urgency of the case—you should permit me to put the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must apply the same Rule to the hon. and gallant Member as to other Members.

Captain BENN: Then, Sir, will you tell me when the proper moment arrives for me to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in reference to this subject. Shall I do it now or after the Ballot?

Mr. SPEAKER: The proper time is at the end of Questions.

Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is a definite Rule of the House that no question is allowed to be put by private notice unless it is urgent and there is no other opportunity of answering it; and whether, in these circumstances, certain questions are put in this way which could be quite well put on the Paper? Indeed, on a recent occasion a question was allowed which had been for two days on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must express my gratitude to the hon. Member for his vigilance in this matter, and for pointing out to me something which had escaped my notice. Of course, every hon. Member thinks his own question is urgent.

At the end of Question—

Captain W. BENN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to secure effective relief for British traders whose goods are held up or otherwise interfered with by the new authorities in the Rhineland.

The PRIME MINISTER: On a point of Order. May I say in regard to this matter, on which a question was addressed to me by private notice, that in my opinion it is impossible that any action of this House can make any difference. We are having constant communications on the matter and are doing everything possible to facilitate trade, and in my belief everything possible is being done.

Captain BENN: On that point of Order. May I direct attention to the fact that large cargoes, including one cargo from my own constituency, are being held up. At present there is a threat to sell one of these cargoes by auction, and therefore the interests of British traders are in grave jeopardy.

Sir JOHN SIMON: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask you, Sir, whether it is in itself any reason for saying that a matter is not urgent and public that there should be a statement made by the head of the Government that they are doing what they can, but cannot do anything effective?

The PRIME MINISTER: I put it forward that nothing that would be done by the House of Commons could make any difference.

Mr. J. JONES: Cannot we protect our own people?

Mr. SPEAKER: My mind has not been affected by that at all, but this is a matter which has been under the notice of the House for days, if not longer. And with regard to the particular case referred to by the hon. and gallant Member as affecting his constituency, I have no doubt there are many others. There is a question, if I am not mistaken, on the Paper for to-morrow by the right hon. Member at his side (Sir J. Simon) on that very question, and if it be on the Paper for to-morrow, it is not urgent for to-day.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I submit to you that this is a matter of growing urgency? I should have asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House a week ago, but the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs informed me that he was making representations. Now it is clear from our information that these representations, though made to the Government ten days ago, have received nothing but a formal reply, and in these circumstances I submit that this is a matter which comes under the Standing Order which lays it down that matters of definite and urgent public importance may be raised in this way.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only thing I can say is that, in my opinion, it does not.

MEXICO.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reasons there are, other than our wish to fall in with the views of the United States Government, against recognition of the present Mexican Government by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. McNEILL: I have nothing to add to the answer which I returned to four questions on this subject on 14th March.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that some compromise might be arrived at, so that we could get on with our export trade?

Mr. McNEILL: If my hon. Friend will refer to my previous answer he will find a whole fund of information.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Mr. PONSONBY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ambassadors' Conference, before coming to a decision with regard to Eastern Galicia, had any consultation with representatives of the Soviet Government, in view of the fact that the population of Eastern Galicia is largely Ukrainian, and the Ukraine is one of the republics of the Russian federation?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative, but by Article 3 of the Russo-Polish Treaty, signed at Riga on 18th March, 1921, Russia and the Ukraine expressed their disinterestedness in all territories situated to the west of the frontier laid down in that Treaty.

Mr. PONSONBY: Have not the Russian Government protested at their not having been consulted in this matter, and is it the policy of His Majesty's Government, not only to ignore the Russian Government, but to insult them?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; I do not think there has been any insult at all.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what guarantees have been given by Poland with respect to autonomy in Eastern Galicia; and whether the Ukrainian majority in that territory will possess full rights in dealing with the country's resources, as well as unfettered freedom of trade with the nationals of other lands?

Mr. McNEILL: There are no guarantees except that the recent decision of the Ambassadors' Conference, whereby Eastern Galicia became incorporated in the Polish State, was arrived at in view of the fact that Poland had recognised that the special ethnographical conditions of the territory necessitated the establishment of an autonomous régime. Until the Polish Government has applied the proposed measures of autonomy, it is impossible to state the extent of the rights which will be enjoyed by the local population.

POLAND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's representative in Paris raised no objec-
tions at the Ambassadors' Conference to the inclusion in Poland of Vilna and of Eastern Galicia; and whether instructions in this sense were sent him from Downing Street?

Mr. McNEILL: The instructions of His Majesty's representative on the Conference of Ambassadors were to agree to the inclusion of Vilna and Eastern Galicia, subject to the conditions which had already been stated, under Polish sovereignty.

REPARATIONS (LEAGUE OF NATIONS).

Mr. RAWSON: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if the representative of this country on the Council of the League of Nations can be instructed to raise and support in the Council of the League a recommendation that the League should mediate between all the nations affected on the question of reparations arising out of the late War?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to statements made in the House by myself and by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 19th February and the 13th March, to which I have nothing to add.

SLAVE TRAFFIC, RED SEA AND PERSIAN GULF.

Mr. BECKER: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on how many occasions British warships have shelled native villages along the Iraq coasts in British occupation?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): No native village along the Iraq coast has been shelled by British warships. Villages of the Yalsad tribe on the Batinah coast of Oman were shelled by His Majesty's ships on four occasions in October and November, 1922, at the request of the Political Agent, Muscat, and with the approval of the Political Resident, Persian Gulf. These tribes were known to be the principal participators in the slave traffic on that coast in defiance of Treaty obligations, and they had adopted a very defiant attitude towards the Muscat Government.

Mr. BECKER: Has the bombardment of the villages stopped the slave traffic?

Mr. AMERY: I think it would help to do so.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is there any difference between bombing unarmed villages and bombing Hartlepool and Scarborough?

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reference to the recrudescence of slave-running in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, from what ports the dhows captured by His Majesty's ships were sailing and for what destination they were bound; and whether the recrudescence can be traced to slave-trading in any particular country or territory.?

Mr. AMERY: In the only case in the Red Sea in which there was definite evidence of the port from which the captured dhow had sailed and its destination, the Colonial Court of Admiralty at Aden arrived at the conclusion that the slaves were kidnapped in Abyssinia, and shipped from Tajurrah, in French Somaliland, to Midi in the Idrisi territory on the Arabian coast, and that they were being taken on from Midi to Jeddah, in the Hedjaz, for sale, when the dhow was captured. As regards the Persian Gulf, it is known that members of the Yalsad tribe, which occupies a portion of the Batinah coast (Gulf of Oman) in the neighbourhood of Masuah and Suwaik, participate in the slave traffic, and there is some evidence that slaves are brought across from Persia and Baluchistan. There was also a case in which slaves from the Persian coast were destined for Sohar, which is also on the Batinah coast.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GUN CONSTRUCTION, WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that out of the money allocated to Woolwich Arsenal for the production of five 16-inch guns the major portion will be expended on tools, forgings, and factory expenses and that only a very small percentage will be available for wages; and whether he will consider the allocation to the Arsenal of further orders for smaller guns, fittings, etc., provided for in the new Estimates?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, We have allotted six 16-inch guns, complete with breach mechanisms, to Woolwich, and the cost, while providing, the essential new tools and the usual factory expenses, does not include the forgings. The Ordnance Factory authorities are responsible for the actual expenditure of the money, but I understand that about half of the total amount would be spent directly and indirectly on wages. We have already provisionally allocated to Woolwich as large a share as possible of orders for the manufacture of smaller guns and fittings, together with nearly all naval gun repair work. In 1923–24 the value of naval orders allotted to the Arsenal will be rather more than half that of orders allotted to naval factories and the trade.

COMMERCE PROTECTION.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have recently considered the prospective diminution in the output of home-produced foodstuffs and the consequent increased dependence of the country upon the importation of foodstuffs during the period of a future war; and whether, since such increase in the volume of sea-borne traffic would increase the strain upon the Navy, he will say what provision it is proposed to make, having regard to that contingency?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir; this matter, in so far as it comes within the scope of Admiralty policy, is always under consideration by the naval staff, and plans are worked out for various contingencies.

AIR ARM.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that seaplanes of a new type have been built and commissioned by the Air Ministry for service with the Air arm of the Fleet; whether the Admiralty were consulted as to the details of the design and specification; and how many sea planes are now serving with the Royal Navy?

Mr. AMERY: The Admiralty are aware that seaplanes of a new type have been built and that trials are being carried out. These seaplanes are at present being used for experimental purposes, and they are not, therefore, allocated for service with the Air arm of the Fleet.
The Admiralty is consulted in regard to development, but not in regard to details of design and specification, which are laid down by the Air Ministry. The seaplanes now supplied for operation with the Navy consist of 12 float-planes and 10 flying boats.

Viscount CURZON: Is it the practice of the Air Ministry to consult with the Admiralty in regard to the design of seaplanes?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. They consult with the Admiralty as regards general development, and work out the details themselves.

Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many planes of the following types are allocated to the branch of the Royal Air Force operating with the Navy; fighters, bombers, reconnaissance, and torpedo planes?

Mr. AMERY: The numbers of aircraft allocated for operations with the Navy are
Fighters—Six.
Bombers—Nil.
Reconnaissance—Eighteen (including six float planes).
Spotting planes—Eighteen (including six float planes).
Torpedo planes—Twelve.
I understand from the Air Ministry that there are also in the first line reserve, which is kept at the unit's base, machines to the number of 50 per cent. of the unit's strength in the case of units in Home waters, and 100 per cent. in the case of units abroad.
The above figures do not include flying boats or experimental craft, and do not take into account increases provided for in the Estimates for 1923–24.

Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Navy is up to a one-Power standard when it has only six fighters and no bombers whatever?

Mr. AMERY: That is being fully considered by a Committee.

Captain BRASS: May I ask who pays for these machines? Do they appear in the Estimates for the Air Force or for the Navy?

Mr. AMERY: They come on the Air Force Estimates.

DRESS REGULATIONS, PORTSMOUTH.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an order has been issued in the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, forbidding men dressed as seamen from carrying handbags; and how it is intended that these ratings shall carry their clothes when proceeding on leave?

Mr. AMERY: The matter is being investigated.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter, as these men feel it somewhat derogatory that they should not be allowed to carry their own bags?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir, I will.

MECHANICIANS (REDUCTION).

Sir B. FALLE: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are several mechanicians who are anxious to leave His Majesty's Service under the reductions scheme and that there are several mechanicians who have received notice of compulsory discharge who do not wish to leave His Majesty's Service; and whether he will authorise a mutual exchange between these chief petty officers?

Mr. AMERY: Mechanicians who desired to leave the Royal Navy under the reduction scheme have had abundant opportunities since May last of volunteering for discharge. The number of volunteers from this rating, however, was actually less than the surplus to be reduced. For this reason it has been necessary to discharge a certain number compulsorily. Orders, however, have been given that any men in surplus ratings, who volunteer for discharge under the terms of the reduction scheme, are to be discharged before all others.

LLOYDS' SIGNALLING STATIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware than an agreement was entered into between the Corporation of Lloyds and the Admiralty, for a period of 50 years from June, 1901, by which the Admiralty took over the whole of Lloyds' signalling stations, and that the same have since been operated by coastguards-men under the control of the Admiralty; whether it has been suggested that in
future only the naval signalling stations shall continue under the Admiralty and the remaining stations be transferred to the Board of Trade; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the necessity for only trained men being employed for the collection and distribution of shipping intelligence, Lloyds decline to allow the transfer of the agreement from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade; and whether he will give an assurance that no alteration will be made and that the existing terms of the contract will be duly carried out until the expiry of the existing agreement?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, the reply is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, this was the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee, whose Report has been laid before Parliament. As regards the remainder of the question, a letter has been received from Lloyds strongly urging the necessity of the Admiralty remaining responsible for the stations where this particular work is performed, and the views expressed by Lloyds are, of course, receiving the most careful and sympathetic attention.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at the Inter-Departmental Committee to which he refers, notwithstanding the agreement, no representatives of Lloyds were asked to appear and give evidence and does he think that is a fair way to deal with matters of this importance?

Mr. AMERY: The matter was fully kept in view.

UNESTABLISHED WRITERS.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that unestablished writers, that is, ex-boy writers and boy writers, employed in His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments who entered after 4th August, 1914, are required to pass a qualifying examination before they can be placed on the established list, and that those failing to qualify are to be discharged; that hitherto these writers have been regarded as members of the permanent staff, and precluded from competing in either of the two examinations already held for the absorption of temporary staffs in the clerical class (male); that boy writers and ex-boy writers were obliged to pass a Civil
Service examination to obtain entry into the dockyard, no such competition having been originally held for the admission of the temporary staff; that, having entered direct from school and since specialised in Government work, they are handicapped if forced to seek employment outside the Service; that the majority have completed from six to eight years' efficient service, many having been for some years employed on duties ordinarily performed by established third-grade clerks in pre-War days; whether he is aware that the decision is regarded as unfair; and, seeing that such boy writers and ex-boy writers as were eligible were released by the Admiralty and served in the War, whether he can see his way to reconsider the decision that has been arrived at?

Mr. AMERY: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the reply favourable or not?

Mr. AMERY: I would rather not summarise it.

The reply is as follows:

The question of the position of un-established writers who were entered by normal Civil Service examination as boy writer after the 4th August, 1914, has been the subject of very careful consideration and of discussion with the Treasury. The Regulations under which such boys were entered provided that successful candidates would be eligible, subject to the existence of vacancies and to their being recommended, for promotion without further examination to the post of hired writer, and that unless so promoted they would be discharged on attaining the age of 20 years. Those who became hired writers were eligible after seven years' service as such to compete at a written examination for establishment as third grade clerk. Under the recent reorganisation of the Departmental Clerical Class, the class of hired writer ceases to exist, and the contention that officers who were eligible for appointment as hired writer are entitled to appointment without examination to the Departmental Clerical Class is not admitted. There are also objections to the claim that these officers should be
established without examination on grounds applicable to the Government service generally. Following upon the recommendations of the Reorganisation Committee and of the Temporary Staffs Sub-Committee of the National Whitley Council, the establishment under Clause VII of the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1910, of unestablished officers has been limited to persons employed prior to the 4th August, 1914, upon work of a permanent nature. Moreover, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who determine general questions of this nature, state that they are unable to ignore the pledges given on behalf of the Government to ex-service men or to agree that the youths-in question should be established without written examination whilst efficient ex-service and possibly disabled men are required to qualify at a written competitive examination as a condition prior to establishment. It has further been decided that the legitimate claims of the boy writers in question would be met by requiring them to qualify at a competition or competitions for the Admiralty Department Clerical Class, at which not only candidates from this class, but also ex-service men who have been employed as temporary clerks in Admiralty Service should also be eligible to compete, and details of the scheme are now under consideration.

COAST WATCHING FORCE.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, under the new change in the Coastguard Service, the engagement is only a monthly one and that a portion of the bonus has to be forfeited, amounting the case of officers to £200; and whether, in view of these and other facts connected with the change, he can see his way to make the new position more permanent in character

Mr. AMERY: The conditions of service in the new Coast Watching Force are a matter for the Board of Trade, to whom I would refer my hon. Friend as regards the first and last parts of his question. As regards the refund of a portion of the bonus by officers and men of the Coastguard who take service under the Board of Trade, the sum to be refunded is subject to a maximum for each grade, which in the case of officers has been fixed at £200. The bonus paid being in the
nature of compensation for discharge from the Service, it is obviously inequitable that officers and men who pass directly into the service of another Department should retain the full sum they would have received if discharged from the public service altogether.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.

Sir B. FALLE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether residence in a Royal Naval Barracks, in the case of a naval rating who has no shore address, is to be considered a residential qualification for a Parliamentary vote under the Representation of the People Act in the same manner as an Army rank residing in married quarters?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I am advised that any naval rating residing in a Royal Naval barracks has the same right to be registered for his residence there as a soldier living in camp, whether in married quarters or not. In each case, a special claim for actual residence qualification is required, so as to ensure that the man will not be registered in some other constituency under the privilege system provided in the case of naval or military voters.

WAR MATERIAL (CONTINENTAL SHIPMENTS).

Mr. TILLETT: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information that considerable quantities of war material are being shipped to and from this country and certain Continental ports; if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the consignees and ultimate destination of this material; and if he is aware of the danger of a national maritime transport stoppage as the result of the traffic?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply to this question. The importation and exportation of firearms and ammunition to and from this country are prohibited except under licence issued by the Board of Trade, and full information as to the consignees and ultimate destination of any material of a warlike nature is required to be furnished in each
case. I will have the recent records looked up and communicate further with the hon. Member, but I am led to believe that there have been no unduly large shipments in the last few months. I have no information as to the last part of the question.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HARDIE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether boys going to Australia under the Migration Scheme are compelled to take military training; and what term of service is required, and between what ages is it necessary?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Subject to certain exceptions, under the laws of the Commonwealth all male inhabitants of Australia between the ages of 12 and 26, who are British subjects, and have resided in Australia for six months, are liable to undergo training: between the ages of 12 to 14 as junior cadets; for this class, the training consists of physical drill and elementary marching drill for 15 minutes on each school-day; between the ages of 14 to 18 as senior cadets, the training consists of 40 drills a year of an average length of an hour and a half. Between 18 and 26, as members of the citizen forces. Members of the citizen forces are trained in camp for eight days a year and for a further eight days at home. In the case of naval forces, artillery and engineers, the camp training is for 17 days.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that military training in Australia was of very great advantage in the late War?

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, in connection with a meeting organised by the National Constitutional Association to consider the questions of unemployment and emigration, secretaries of local employment committees were empowered to issue cards of invitation at the Government's expense, he will extend the same facilities for advertising a meeting to be organised by a Labour association on the inadvisability of promoting emigration to the Dominions and Colonies, the Governments of which have admitted that an
unemployment problem also confronts them?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The hon. Member puts a hypothetical case. If and when such a case arises in fact, I shall be glad to consider it.

BUILDING TRADES DISPUTE.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the national agreement entered into on 9th April, 1921, between the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives provides that, before any stoppage of work can take place, six calendar months' notice has to be given to terminate that agreement; and will he draw the attention of the parties concerned to clause 18 of that agreement?

Sir M. BARLOW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to his question on the 15th March. In the present circumstances I do not think that it is desirable for me to make any further statement. I still hope, however, that means may be found for avoiding a stoppage of work in this industry.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the reply to which he has referred he did not answer the question which is put here, whether the agreement provides that before a stoppage takes place six months' notice has to be given?

Sir M. BARLOW: The hon. Member is quite well aware what the printed terms of the agreement are. What the precise effect of the agreement is, is, of course, one of the matters in discussion.

Mr. THOMSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us any information in view of the very serious effect it will have on house building if a stoppage takes place?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agreement is based upon six months' notice on a cost of living basis and that the employers are now demanding a reduction over and above that which they were entitled to according to the agreement, and they are not giving
notice, but at the end of this month they are going to lock the men out, so the men will be compelled to cease work in defiance of the agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, NANTYGLO.

Mr. BARKER: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if the Nantyglo Employment Exchange is authorised to tell unemployed men in that area that they must go to Doncaster, 150 miles away, to look for work; and, if so, whether he will give instructions to the officials at this Employment Exchange to discontinue this practice?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am having local inquiry made as to the facts and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is prevalent at many Exchanges and men are asked to go a very unreasonable distance to look for work?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware of the practice.

Mr. HAYDAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman issued any such instruction, that men can be sent from one district to another in search of employment, or is it not rather sending them to fill vacancies?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am having the whole matter inquired into. I cannot give an answer on a specific point without notice.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of supplying these unemployed men who are asked to go 50 or 80 miles for work with boots?

ARTERIAL ROADS, LONDON.

Mr. HARRIS: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour what main roads are being constructed, with the aid of the London County Council and the Unemployment Grants Committee, on which London men are being employed; what is the probable cost of such schemes; how many men were being employed on such roads in January and February; and how many men are now being employed on them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question, which, I understand, refers to the arterial roads which are being executed by the Ministry of Transport and to which the London County Council are contributing. As the answer is somewhat lengthy and detailed, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Road.
Mileage.
Total Estimated Cost.
No. of men employed drawn from L.C.C. area.


Average for January,1923.
Average for February,1923.
Average for March, 1923.(First two weeks.)




£





London— Southend Road (Contract No. 1).
20
1,150,000
553
448
329


London—Purfleet Road (Contract No. 1).
8¼
400,000
503
454
422


London— Dover Road—







(a) Dartford — Gravesend Section.
2
70,000
13
7
5


(b) Gravesend—Strood Section.
5¼
240,000
234
214
228


London—Folkestone Road—







(a) Sideup— Farningham Section.
6
260,000
595
357
226


(b) Farningham—Wrotham
6
185,000
365
311
313


Watling Street—







Dartford—Strood
11½
760,000
1,266
1,187
1,135



59
3,065,000
3,529
2,978
2,658

In addition to the above works, the following schemes will be put in hand in the near future, the unskilled labour being drawn, as before, from the area of the London County Council:

Road.
Approximate Cost.



£


Sidcup By-Pass
162,000


Purfleet-Tilbury Road
273,000


Kingston By-Pass
503,000


Sutton By-Pass
281,000

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men out of employment in the branch of the engineering industry dependent on the manufacture of commercial motor vehicles; what are the present rates of wages of skilled and unskilled men in the industry; how they compare with

Following is the answer

The Table which follows gives particulars of the arterial road works which are at present in course of execution by the Ministry of Transport, in collaboration with various highway authorities and with the London County Council. The unskilled labour engaged on these works is drawn from unemployed men resident within the area of the administrative County of London.

the wages of municipal road sweepers; whether he is aware that the year's losses of 12 commercial vehicle manufacturers disclosed by their last accounts amounted in the aggregate to £2,500,000, and that this state of affairs is due to the dumping on the British home market of thousands of war-surplus Army lorries of British and foreign origin imported from the Continent; and whether he will recommend that the further importation of war-surplus vehicles be prohibited?

Sir M. BARLOW: Information is not available as to the number of men out of employment in the branch of the engineering industry dependent on the manufacture of commercial motor vehicles, but in the engineering industry as a whole the number of workpeople, covered by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, who were registered as unemployed
at 26th February in Great Britain was 191,376, or 18.8 per cent. In the principal centres of the motor engineering industry the present weekly time rates of wages of skilled fitters and turners range from 52s. to 60s. 11d. a week, and those of engineers' labourers range from 37s. 6d. to 43s. 6d. a week. The present rates of wages of road sweepers in the same districts range generally from 46s. 10d. to 58s. 10d. a week, though certain local authorities in London pay higher rates.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Sir M. BARLOW: I think that is a matter for the Board of Trade.

Viscount CURZON: Will it be necessary to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Board of Trade?

Sir M. BARLOW: I would suggest that it should be put to the Board of Trade.

DOMESTIC TRAINING CENTRES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer in the running of domestic training centres for the ensuing financial year; will he say how many of these training centres have been in operation for the past year; by how many pupils have they been attended; what has been the total cost; and is any record kept of the number of such pupils who have entered domestic service and held their situations for a consecutive period of six months?

Sir M. BARLOW: The total cost to the State of homecraft training centres during the financial year 1923–24 is estimated at £35,000. The number of such centres during the year 1922–23 was 123, providing accommodation for approximately 4,500 women and girls. The total cost of these centres for the year 1922/23 is estimated at £84,220, the greater part of which will have been borne by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment out of their own funds. Not less than 70 per cent. of the women and girls leaving the training centres are known to have entered domestic service, but information is not available as be the number who hold their situations for a consecutive period of six months.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks how many pupils have attended these training centers?

Sir M. BARLOW: If the answer is not quite clear, I apologise to the hon. Member. There has been pressure on the space.

DOMESTIC SERVICE (COMMITTEE APPOINTED).

Colonel NEWMAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the amount of female labour which is at present registered as unemployed, his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced by housewives in obtaining domestic help; whether he is aware that no domestic bureau in the Metropolis can supply a junior for work in the kitchen; and will he say what steps are being taken to render available the services of pupils who have been trained in a course of the culinary art at domestic training centres?

Sir M. BARLOW: The difficulty of obtaining domestic help is, I am afraid, a matter of common knowledge, but I am not aware that this difficulty is so great as is suggested in the second part of the question. Pupils trained at a domestic training centre may be engaged either by application to the superintendent of the centre or to the local Employment Exchange. Those responsible for training centres receive a far larger number of applications from intending mistresses desirous of obtaining servants than they are able to supply.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these local committees are still sending girls who have been untrained 100 miles in order to obtain employment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

Major EDMONDSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement as to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the question of domestic service?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have decided to set up a Committee with the following terms of reference, namely, "to inquire into the present conditions as to the supply of female domestic servants, and, in particular, to inquire into the effect
of the Unemployment Insurance scheme in this connection; and to make recommendations."
I have invited a number of ladies to serve on the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"]—Yes, it is a woman's question. I have already received acceptances from the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire (Mrs. Wintringham), from Lady Askwith, Mrs. Harrison Bell, Mrs. Burgwin, Mrs. Cohen, Lady Procter, and Miss Julia Varley. Mrs. E. M. Wood, whose services as Secretary of the London War Pensions Committee are well-known, has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to the terms of reference that the Committee should inquire into the suitability of mistresses to have girls as domestic servants?

Mr. TURNER: Is it not advisable to have on the Committee a representative of the fathers whose daughters are in domestic service?

An HON. MEMBER: Would it not be well to add to the Committee an adult working woman?

REGISTRATION, HANWELL.

Mr. MOSLEY: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that no Employment Exchange exists in Hanwell and that unemployed persons are obliged to walk to either Southall or Acton in order to register; and whether he will consider the question of opening an Exchange in Hanwell?

Sir M. BARLOW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the interests of economy it is necessary to restrict the number of branch offices, and I do not think I should be justified in opening an Exchange at Hanwell under present conditions.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that these unemployed people are received with exceptional courtesy in Acton?

GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the social conditions now prevalent in the City of Glasgow; that thousands of working people are living in dread of being evicted owing to inability to pay rent caused
through continued unemployment; that children are being underfed, thereby impairing their future health; and that a large part of the population of the city are living in a state nearing famine, while the shopkeepers are being ruined through the working people not having purchasing power sufficient to buy the necessaries of life; and what action he intends taking by legislation to alter this state of affairs?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am of course aware of the grave social conditions prevailing in Glasgow as in other large industrial centres in Scotland. With regard to the second part of the question, I am satisfied that the utmost discretion is being exercised both in granting and in putting into force decrees of eviction for non-payment of rent. With regard to the third part, steps have been taken for the supply of food in necessitous cases of which details are being furnished in the reply which I am giving to a question put down for to-day by the hon. Member for Shettleston. As regards the fourth, fifth and last parts of the question, I am aware that the present depression in trade is pressing severely on all sections of the community, and the Government is making every effort, both by legislation and administration, to promote that revival of trade which alone can provide a lasting remedy for these great and admitted evils.

GROCERY TRADE WAGES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour why the Grocery and Provision Trade Board (Scotland) wage rates have not been confirmed, seeing that they were unanimously agreed by both employés and employers; and what is the present position with regard to this Board?

Sir M. BARLOW: It was decided not to confirm the Scotch rates to which the hon. Member refers pending the settlement of rates by the Grocery and Provisions Trade Board (England and Wales) in order that the two sets of rates might be brought into concurrent operation. The matter must, I think, stand over until it can be considered in relation to the proposed Bill for the amendment of the Trade Board Acts.

Mr. SHORT: When will that be?

Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot give any specific date.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the chaos which has arisen from the action of the Minister in the matter, will he see that in the legislation power is given for the decision of the Trade Board to become final and compulsory?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, pending the issue of this Report, the whole of the existing legislation shall be made of no result whatever by refusing to ratify these decisions?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not say anything of the kind. The question of the grocery trade was specifically considered by Lord Cave's Committee. It has already been indicated that the policy of the Government, roughly speaking, is to follow the recommendations of Lord Cave's Committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that recommendations come to between employers and workmen have to be held in abeyance no matter how long? It is three years this has been held up.

Mr. STURROCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the amending Bill which is in contemplation will be introduced in the present Session?

Sir M. BARLOW: I hope to introduce it shortly after Easter.

TRADE UNION DISPUTE, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. HARPER PARKER: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is informed in relation to the disturbances which have been taking place in the South Wales coalfield, whereby much damage has been done and inconvenience caused to different people on account of a dispute between the Miners' Union in those coalfields and the Enginemen and Craftsmen's Union; and, if he has not be so informed, will he make the necessary inquiries with a view to bringing the two unions together in conference, with a view to ending the disturbances and bringing about a peaceful settlement of the matters in dispute?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that disputes have been occurring in certain parts of the South Wales coalfield between members of the South Wales Miners' Federation and members of the South Wales Mechanical and Surface Workers' Union. I understand that machinery is in existence for the settlement of such disputes through the offices of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and I doubt whether Government intervention for this purpose is desirable.

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS DISPUTE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a threatened stoppage of work by the Union of National Electrical Engineers; and whether, seeing that such a stoppage would result in depriving the public of electric light and heat, he will say what action he proposes to take?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been in touch with the parties in this matter, and the Electrical Power Engineers' Association have addressed a letter to me on the subject. I have arranged for a deputation to be received for the discussion of the position.

EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S ROLL).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now inform the House as to the names of the local authorities in Great Britain who arc not on the King's Roll?

Sir M. BARLOW: The National Council for the King's Roll considered at its meeting yesterday the attitude of local authorities to the King's Roll, and decided to send a special appeal to all county, town and borough councils in England, Scotland and Wales not on the Roll. Until the results of this appeal are known, they decided not to advise any action with regard to the publication of names.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the meaning of this long-continued consideration for these unpatriotic bodies?

NAVAL ARMAMENTS (INTER NATIONAL CONFERENCE).

Mr. C. ROBERTS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided to summon a Naval Conference to consider the extension of the Washington Naval Agreements to all States that have not signed those agreements; and whether the invitation to this conference will be extended to all States who are members of the League of Nations, or to all States?

Mr. McNEILL: The Council of the League decided at its last meeting that the International Conference recommended by the Assembly of the League in September, 1922, should be held at Geneva shortly after the close of the Pan-American Peace Conference which meets at Santiago on 25th March, the exact date to be fixed subsequently. The agenda for this conference will include the question of extending the principles of the Washington Naval Treaty to non-signatory States, members of the League. States not members of the League will, I understand, be advised of the date of the meeting of the International Conference.

Mr. ROBERTS: What is the object of advising them?

Mr. McNEILL: The object is that they should know in order that they may apply if they wish to go. Then the application will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Second Reading of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Continuance and Amendment) Bill will be taken before the Easter Recess; and, if not, will he cause the Bill to be printed and circulated to Members before the Adjournment for Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not proposed to take the Second Reading of this Bill before Easter, and I am afraid it will not be practicable to circulate it before the Recess.

Mr. JONES: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is great expectancy in the country with regard to this Bill which
affects over eight million tenants who were expecting to know something before Easter about the Bill, which is very contentious and intricate?

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existing Act expires at the end of June next, and that in consequence there are many people both tenants and owners, who are anxious to know how they are to be affected by the new legislation, and that it is in the public interest that the Bill should be immediately printed?

The PRIME MINISTER: The importance of the subject makes it all the more necessary to proceed with caution.

SINGLE-HOUSE OWNERS.

Mr. BENNETT: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extension of the Rent Restriction Act, the Government propose to consider the position of small single-house owners wishful to obtain possession for the purposes of personal residence; and whether he can give any assurance that their point of view will be considered and, if necessary, dealt with in any legislation to be introduced this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

WORKMEN'S HOUSES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is giving his consent in all cases where local authorities apply for permission to erect workmen's houses on the understanding that they shall receive the same State assistance as those erected after the passing of the new Housing Act; and, if he has refused his consent in any cases, will he state on what grounds it has been withheld?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I am not aware of any case in which consent has been refused where the houses are of the type described in my reply to the hon. Member yesterday, and where the number proposed is within the capacity of the local building industry to complete with proper despatch.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a definite decision is given as soon as possible by his Department, in order to minimise the confusion
that has arisen from the delay that has already taken place?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that it would be possible to give a decision quicker than decisions are usually given by my Department.

Mr. EDE: Are we to understand that the inclusion of a parlour is required as a ground for refusing permission to build municipal houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The particular terms of the subsidy apply only to houses that have not a parlour.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in coming to a decision about the subsidy is causing very serious inconvenience to the rings in the building trade, and that if the decision come too late, some of the rings will break?

SEPARATE TENEMENTS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 71.
asked the Minister of Health what number of houses, designated in single tenements under Section 27 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, were converted into two or more tenements, respectively; and how many were converted into flats of more than three rooms to each dwelling?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Statistics are not available of the number of application to County Courts under Section 27 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, or of the number of houses converted into separate tenements by private persons. Fifty-one local authorities have undertaken conversions of houses and other buildings into working-class tenements, and 1,033 tenements have been provided by this means.

SMALL DWELLINGS (PURCHASES).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 72.
asked the Minister of Health how many county councils, borough councils, and urban and rural district councils, respectively, under the powers conferred on them by the Small Dwellings Act, 1899, advanced money to applicants for the purpose of purchasing a dwelling house for personal use; how many houses were so purchased; and how much money was advanced up to August, 1914; and whether any money for the
above purpose has been loaned since January, 1919, in conformity with the said Act, and how much?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act have been made by three county councils, 19 borough councils, 34 urban district councils, and five rural district councils. Information as to the number of houses purchased is not available. Up to August, 1914, local authorities obtained sanction to the borrowing of sums amounting to £349,500 for the purpose of advances under the Act. Since January, 1919, loans amounting to £338,000 have been sanctioned.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 90.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes, in connection with the housing proposals of the Government, to introduce legislation extending the operation and scope of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

STATISTICS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of houses which have been erected by private enterprise or for which the plans have been approved by the local authorities during the past six months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information is not at present available, but I have asked local authorities to furnish me with a return on the subject.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will furnish a return showing, as nearly as can be estimated, the total number of houses built in the United Kingdom during each year from 1913 to 1922, inclusive?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The available information does not enable me to furnish such a return as is requested. But according to the Census of 1921 it appears that the number of structurally separate dwellings increased by 357,000 in England and Wales between 1911 and 1921.

LONDON.

Mr. HARRIS: 80.
asked the Minister of Health what are the estimated needs of London for houses to meet the present shortage and do away with both overcrowding and slums; how many houses have been completed since the Armistice
by the London County Council, the London borough councils, and the City Corporation, respectively; and whether the building that has gone on since 1918 has done more than meet the normal increase of the population?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A reliable estimate of the present shortage of houses in London is not available. The total number of houses completed since the Armistice are as follow:

By the London County Council
6,906


By the City of London
316


By the Metropolitan boroughs
5,650


Total
12,872

In addition 654 tenements have been provided by Metropolitan boroughs by the conversion of larger houses and 640 houses were built in the County of London under the private builders' subsidy scheme. In a report made to the County Council as a result of an exhaustive investigation made in November, 1921, the valuer and medical officer state: "Since 1919 the number of houses provided has probably not met the growth of requirements during the period." As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Census for 1921 showed that the population of the County had decreased by 38,436 since 1911.

RATE RELIEF AND LOANS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in future housing legislation, he will, in preference to the encouragement of building by public authorities, give facilities to private builders and owners, by relieving newly-built houses of rates for a period, and by advancing money to potential house-builders on easy terms?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have given these suggestions my full consideration and will make a statement in regard to them on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill.

RENT REDUCTIONS (COST).

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 83.
asked the Minister of Health if any statement can be supplied to the House showing the extra cost to the taxpayer of the reductions of rent which have, since the beginning of 1922, been sanctioned in respect
of premises constructed under the subsidy scheme of the late Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Reductions in the rents originally agreed have been approved in respect of 568 local authorities, mainly since the beginning of 1922. The net amount involved by this reduction is approximately £150,000 per annum. It is difficult to say precisely what effect on the Exchequer is caused by any reduction in rent as it must to some extent depend, not only on the rent originally fixed, but on the rent which can actually be collected. Reductions are only approved when it can be shown that the rents charged are excessive. It is open to a local authority which is not satisfied with the rent approved by the Department to appeal to the independent tribunal appointed under the Housing Scheme Regulations.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. A. BENNETT: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to inform the House what are the Government proposals with regard to housing; whether he will ask the opinions of the local authorities of this country, both large and small, as to the extent to which the particular proposals of the Government will be of use to them; and whether he is able, from the negotiations ho has carried on, to give any idea of the number of houses which are likely to be built under these proposals by the local authorities and by private enterprise, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The housing proposals of the Government will be embodied in the Bill to be introduced as soon as possible after the Recess. The chief points in the scheme and particularly the amount of subsidy to be provided by the Government have already been fully discussed with representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations and of the larger boroughs, and general agreement has been reached that the subsidy is one which will enable building to be pressed forward with the utmost vigour and that building by private enterprise would have a prominent place in the programme of the local authorities. As regards the last part of the question, I do not propose to give any estimate of number, which must obviously depend on the activities of the various local authorities.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has any provision been made in the scheme for the individual who wishes to build a house of the subsidised class for himself?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member had better wait and see the Bill.

Mr. CLYNES: How can the right hon. Gentleman describe as private enterprise a plan which depends upon a public subsidy of money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a free country and you can describe anything how you like.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 86.
asked the Minister of Health whether he intends to take any steps to control the prices of building materials, with a view to preventing rings and combines from charging increased prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade upon this matter, and we have decided to set up a small Committee, which will include representatives of the two Departments, the building trade, and local authorities, in order to watch the course of prices and to keep the Government accurately informed of their movements.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is not only a question of keeping an eye on prices, but of keeping an eye on the industry right through from the time when the manufacture begins, rather on prices when the goods reach the market?

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Government gave a pledge to introduce legislation for the control of trusts and rings?

Captain HAY: Does the term "representatives of the building trades"include builders or only employers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first question, it is the price that matters; what we want to see is that prices are not raised unduly. With regard to the second question, no Government can commit its successors. As to the last question, I have not yet decided exactly how these representatives will be appointed.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to appoint representatives of the trade unions and guilds of the building trade on this Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We cannot have too many representatives, but I am quite prepared to consider putting on representatives of the trade unions.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Arising out of the original question, will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what is the use of setting up these committees to watch the alteration in prices, when it is perfectly easy for those who have to build to watch the rise of prices?

Mr. EDWARDS: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the cost of building houses is adversely affected by the existence of rings and trusts, he will consider setting up national factories for the production of these materials, and thus cheapen houses and relieve unemployment by using the skilled men now unemployed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

GRANTS (RETROSPECTION).

Mr. ROBERT JONES: 89.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give the assurance that any grant or concession which may be granted in the next Housing Act to local authorities or private builders will be made retrospective to local authorities or builders in respect of houses or housing schemes that may be started on or before 15th March, 1923?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West.

BUILDING GUILDS.

Mr. WHITELEY: 91.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to give representatives of the building guilds the opportunity of consulting him before bringing in the Housing Bill, seeing that such guilds are prepared to assist in the building of houses without profit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which may be made to me by representatives of the building guilds.

RENTS, ACTON.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has
received a copy of a resolution from the Acton Borough Council urging a reduction of rents on the East Acton estate of 3s. per week, parlour type, and 2s. 6d., non-parlour type houses; and whether he can see his way to accept this suggestion or, as an alternative, refer the matter to the Rents Tribunal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a communication from the council in the sense indicated, but am unable to agree to the proposal, as I am advised that the present rents are not excessive, regard being had to the prevailing rents for comparable houses in the locality. It will be open to the council, if they so desire, to refer the matter to the Rents Tribunal.

CANADA AND UNITED STATES (FISHERIES TREATY).

Major Viscount SANDON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement as to the discrepancy which has been revealed between the instructions given by the Foreign Office to the British Ambassador at Washington and the attitude of the Canadian Government on the subject of the signing of the fisheries treaty with the United States of America; and whether the consideration of this issue of principle will be put down on the agenda of the coming imperial conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer which I returned to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome on the 19th March. I can make no statement in regard to the last part of the question.

WAR BONUS (POST OFFICE SERVANTS).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Sutton v. Attorney-General dealing with the inclusion of War bonuses as part of full civil pay to be granted in addition to military pay while on active service and affecting, in this case, certain grades of Post Office servants; what will be the cost of giving effect to this decision in the Post Office; whether it will govern the case of other public Departments, as the judgment
appears to indicate; and, if so, what is the approximate number of civil servants likely to be affected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): My attention has been drawn to the decision referred to. The effect of the decision is now being considered, and I am not yet in a position to reply to the latter parts of the hon. Gentleman's question.

LOCAL RATES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. HARRISON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the practicability of the presentation to the House of a statement showing the projected expenditure for the year from the rates at the time the Budget is introduced?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Following the practice in recent Financial Statements, an estimate of the total rates collected by local authorities in the year 1922–23 will be given in the Financial Statement for 1923–24. It is not, however, practicable to obtain particulars of the estimated expenditure by local authorities in any year in time for a table to be included in the Financial Statement relating to the same year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SITTINGS.

Sir EDGAR CHATFIELD-CLARKE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state, in view of the late sittings impairing the health of the Members of the House, if he is prepared to summon Parliament next year in the middle of January instead of the middle of February so as to give adequate time to finance and the Estimates?

The PRIME MINISTER: On very few occasions this Session it would have been necessary to ask the House to sit after 11 p.m. had it not been for interruption of business over which the Government had no control. I cannot agree to the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. LUNN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in order to avoid sitting after 11 o'clock at night, of meeting at 11 o'clock in the day? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

SPEECHES (LIMITATION).

Sir E. STOCKTON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the threatened congestion of public business, the general objection to very late sittings, and the inability of ensuring under the present conditions opportunity to an adequate and representative number of Members to lay their views before the House on important occasions, he will consider the desirability of taking such steps as may be necessary to limit all speeches to five minutes unless under exceptional circumstances, in which case the permission of the House would be asked for an extension?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend's proposal to limit speeches has often been discussed before, but so far it has not been found to meet with sufficient support to warrant its adoption.

Mr. STURROCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider devolution, as a means of avoiding late sittings?

POTATOES.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that there is a surplus of potatoes in England and Scotland; and if the Government will consider the advisability of using this surplus for relief work in England or, if advisable, to send some of it to Vienna or other starving areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the fact in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I do not think that his proposal is practicable.

PUBLIC PROPERTY (GIFTS).

Mr. MOSLEY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give effect to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee that the concurrence of Parliament should be obtained before gifts of public property are made by Government Departments where the value of such property exceeds £10,000.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It is proposed to take an early opportunity of discussing this matter with the Public Accounts Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTISTS AND FOREIGN BANDS.

SIR M. BARLOW'S SCHEME.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the unemployment in the country, he can state the circumstances in which foreign troupes of artistes and foreign bands are allowed into the country?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have received many communications on this subject. To save time I hope I may be allowed to make a short statement. In view of the severe unemployment in this country, it clearly is not desirable to allow aliens to come here freely, and take up work for which suitable British labour is available; and Section 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order imposes a duty on me to see that this does not happen. On the other hand, adequate provision for entertainment is a necessary part of national life. The entertainment industry depends very largely upon the introduction of new and varied talent, whether from this country or from abroad. A successful theatre company or variety troupe assists to provide employment, not only for the artistes, but also for large numbers of supernumerary persons, the great majority of whom are, of course, British. On this account, therefore, I usually grant permits to theatre or music hall managers who desire to bring in a foreign company or troupe of artistes to give a stage performance for a limited period here, in the same manner as British artistes go to foreign countries for the same purpose. In the case of foreign bands, including those who come to play dance music, somewhat different considerations apply, though even here I do not think I should be justified in trying to enforce an absolute embargo.
In order, however, to ensure a reasonable opportunity for British musicians to secure employment I have worked out a scheme with leading restaurant and hotel proprietors in London, such as the Savoy and the Berkeley, whereby alien bands may be admitted on condition that an additional number of British musicians equivalent to the foreign band are taken on usually as an integral part of the band, thereby giving them an opportunity of employment and training if necessary. I also insist, generally speaking, that an alien band already in the country shall leave before another alien band enters. These
conditions have been accepted and are being operated by several leading restaurant and hotel proprietors and with the co-operation of the Musicians' Union. I have no reason to think that, given goodwill to make the beat use possible of the available British talent, these conditions interfere unduly with the development of the British entertainments industry.

Mr. HARDIE: Will this apply to Scotland in connection with pipe bands?

Captain A. EVANS: In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour tells us that entertainment is a part of our national life, will he represent his views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so as to get the Entertainments Duty reduced?

Mr. HAYDAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he strikes a disparaging note when he suggests that one of the conditions of alien bands coming here is that they may assimilate a certain number of British musicians, who may use the opportunity as a source of training. Is that not an aspersion on the quality of British musicians?

Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to see that there is complete harmony when the British musicians play with foreign musicians?

RIVER MERSEY (BANK BREACH).

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the medical officer of health to the Sale District Council, Cheshire, that the breach in the banks of the River Mersey is likely to be a grave menace to health during the hot weather; and whether he will take action, with the Minister of Agriculture, to bring further pressure or assistance to bear to get this breach in the banks repaired immediately, that is, before the summer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the Report Referred to. I understand that the repair of the river wall has been approved as an unemployment relief scheme, but that the persons locally interested have not been willing to contribute the required quota to the cost. I will, however, communicate with the District Council as to the present position and inform my hon. Friend of the result.

DON VALLEY (FLOODS).

Major KELLEY: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recurrence of floods in the urban and mining areas of the Don Valley; whether any concerted action has been proposed by the drainage authorities and local authorities concerned; and whether any Government funds are available for a grant for such a purpose?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I have been asked to reply. The Ministry has been aware for some time of the flooding in the particular area to which my hon. Friend refers, and has, on more than one occasion, attempted to constitute, under the Land Drainage Act, 1918, a comprehensive authority which would have the necessary legal powers for dealing with the situation. These attempts, however, have not been successful, but I understand that the West Riding County Council are promoting a Drainage Bill, one of the main objects of which will be to effect an improvement in this area. In reply to the last part of the question, no Government funds are available for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view.

TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).

Dr. WATTS: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if any investigations have been made by his Department as to the value of the Spahlinger treatment for tuber culosis; if so, what is the nature of the reports received; and, if no investigation has yet been made, will he take steps at the earliest possible date to have a thorough investigation made, as has already been done by the United States of America and other foreign Governments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. All the evidence available as to the value of this treatment has been investigated by my Department and one of the medical officers of the Ministry visited Geneva last year, and, through the courtesy of M. Spahlinger, was enabled to examine certain cases of tuberculosis which had been treated by this method. The conclusions arrived at were that although it is not yet possible to express an opinion upon the scientific value of M. Spahlinger's work from the bacterio-
logical standpoint, the clinical results already obtained fully warrant farther investigation as soon as a supply of the complete serum and vaccine is available. It is understood that no definite date can yet be fixed by M. Spahlinger for the production of a further supply even for the purposes of scientific investigation. I am most anxious to encourage further trial of the remedies in this country under expert observation as soon as a supply is available.

Dr. WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lives of many people suffering from tuberculosis have already been saved by the use of this serum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have stated in my answer that, as far as we have been able to test the results, they appear to be very satisfactory, but we have not yet been able to get sufficient data to enable us to come to a final conclusion.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: If I bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend several cases which have been cured entirely by the Spahlinger treatment, will he give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that my hon. Friend can have listened to my reply. There is no supply of serum available at present.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Spahlinger is practically ruined by the cost of this serum, and has no further funds to go on with in order to produce more?

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter cannot be debated by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

DOCTORS.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can yet make any statement as to his proposals for a new arrangement with the doctors under the National Health Insurance Act to take the place of the present agreement, which expires at the end of this year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to make a statement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I cannot give any definite date at present.

Dr. WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present agreement many doctors are expected to be on duty 24 hours a day and seven days a week?

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has settled the conditions which will determine the title of members of approved societies to participate in schemes for additional National Health Insurance benefits following the second valuation by the Government actuary; if so, when will the conditions be published, and will approved societies be consulted on this point; and whether, if the conditions and consequent Regulations have not been settled, the Ministry of Health will submit the proposals to approved societies through the Association of Approved Societies and/or the National Conference of Friendly Societies for consideration prior to their receiving legal effect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter referred to by the hon. Member is at present under consideration and the views of approved societies of various types are being obtained, including those represented by the two bodies named in the last part of the question.

INSTITUTE FOR BLIND, STOCKPORT.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any protest against the intention to dismiss the blind home teacher employed in the institute for the blind at St. Petersgate, Stockport: whether he is aware that the lady in question was approved as a capable teacher by His Majesty's inspector; whether it is the intention of the institute committee to appoint a sighted person in substitution; and whether, in view of the fact that the lady is a most competent blind person and of the desirability of encouraging the
employment of blind persons, he will take steps to have the notice of dismissal withdrawn?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first three questions is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth question, I have decided, after inquiry into the case, that I ought not to interfere with the decision of the committee of the institution.

RE-CONSTITUTED MILK.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 77.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to an advertisement appearing in a magazine called the "Milk Industry," published by the National Federation of Dairymen's Association, offering for sale materials and machinery for the manufacture of re-constituted milk, the sale of which is prohibited by the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act, 1922; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. My attention has recently been drawn to this advertisement, and I am considering whether it is possible to take any effective action in the matter. But I would remind the hon. Member that the offence under Section 4 (2) of the Act of 1922 is to sell re-constituted milk "as" milk."

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a direct incitement to milk traders to break the law?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the point which I answered in the first part of my reply.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is re-constituted milk?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say, but I think that I could show my right hon. Friend.

SEWERAGE, SOUTH WALES (RATING).

Mr. JOHN: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the physical formation of the valleys in which the large mining population of the South Wales and Monmouthshire
coalfield reside, the sewering of the valley is effected by the local authorities charged with the duty of seeing to the same by the construction of trunk sewers with outlets in the Bristol Channel; that such trunk sewers in reaching the sea pass underground through certain parishes in rural districts; that these main sewers are invariably assessed in such rural parishes for very large amounts for local rating purposes, upon which assessments considerable sums are annually paid in local rates by the local authorities owning such sewers, and in respect of which payment no services are rendered to nor are any benefits derived by such authorities; and whether, having regard to the fact, he will insert in the Bating Bill about to be introduced a provision exempting all sewers and sewer works from liability to rates, as was done in the case of Income Tax under the Finance Act, 1921, so that the South Wales and Monmouthshire local authorities, and all other authorities similarly circumstanced, may be relieved of this burden?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is not a matter which could be included within the scope of the proposed Rating Bill, nor could I undertake to introduce special legislation for the purpose.

LONDON GOVERNMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. HARRIS: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the Report of the Royal Commission on London Government; and, if so, when it will be presented to the House of Commons?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The Report was presented to Parliament on the 12th instant, and copies were, I understand, delivered at the Vote Office this morning.

AMBULANCE SERVICE, LONDON.

Mr. BRIANT: 87.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the frequent delay in the removal of persons by ambulance after street accidents in London to hospitals, etc., where they can be received; if he is aware that persons in a critical condition are sometimes taken to an institution where they
are refused admission owing to the lack of vacant beds, and that a second journey has to be taken before actual admission to another institution is obtained, thus involving danger to life and much avoidable suffering; and if further co-ordination between the ambulance and hospital or infirmary authorities can be attained by which daily reports of institutional accommodation available can be in the possession of the ambulance authorities and the police so that the delay in obtaining proper attention can be avoided?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Cases of delay undoubtedly occur, though I have no evidence that they are of frequent occurrence. I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the Voluntary Hospitals Commission with a request that it should be brought to the notice of King Edward's Hospital Fund, acting as the local voluntary hospitals committee for London, and the local voluntary hospital committees surrounding the metropolitan area.

STATUES, LONDON.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 95.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, owing to the grave state of neglect of certain statues in London, owing to divided authority and responsibility for them, he will consider the desirability of the Office of Works taking over charge of all the statues and monuments in London and bringing them under one authority?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): I regret that I do not see my way to extend the financial responsibilities of my Department in this direction.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Would it not be far more satisfactory if one authority were responsible in this House for all public monuments in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HORSE GUARDS (HELMETS).

Mr. BECKER: 97.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that the present metal helmets worn by the Horse Guards cause the men to have
acute headache whilst wearing them; and if he will consider the advisability of withdrawing these old-fashioned and useless helmets and substituting for them a headgear causing less discomfort and more likely to suit modern military requirements?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not aware that these helmets cause headache; no representations to that effect have been received. There is no intention of making any change in the present pattern, which is only used when full dress is worn, and which is considered very suitable for the purposes for which alone it is intended.

LIFE GUARDS (TRANSFER).

Mr. BECKER: 98.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if it is proposed to transfer the Life Guards from London to Windsor and to replace them by the Royal Horse Guards now stationed at Windsor; if so, what will be the cost of this exchange of troops; and why is it necessary?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This move is a normal relief and is necessary owing to the absence of training areas and facilities for movements of cavalry in London. The move of all mounted personnel is carried out by route march and the only appreciable cost on public funds will be that of rail transportation of 80 men and about 30 families from Paddington to Windsor and vice versa. In the absence of information as to size of families and other details I cannot furnish a precise estimate of the cost, but it will be inconsiderable.

EX-ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.

Mr. C. CROOK: 100.
asked the Under-Secretary of Stat for War how many instructors in the Army Educational Corps are ex-Army schoolmasters; how many are non-commissioned officers who have been transferred from regimental duties; and whether, in view of the experience and extended professional training of ex-Army schoolmasters, it is proposed to retain their services in preference to the continued employment of non-commissioned officers who have not been trained for those particular duties.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There are 202 ex-Army schoolmasters employed as
instructors in the Army Educational Corps and 208 non-commissioned officers transferred from regimental duties; many of the latter have had previous training as teachers in civil life. If further reductions are necessary, due consideration on their merits will be given to the claims of ex-Army schoolmasters for retention on grounds of experience and training.

Mr. C. CROOK: 101.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the undertaking given to ex-Army schoolmasters on transfer to the Army Educational Corps that, if approved, they would be promoted to warrant officers, Class I, on completion of eight years' service from the date of confirmation in their appointments, the acceptance of compensation by them as a condition of abrogation of their rights of promotion, as published in Army Order 54/1923, is entirely optional?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, Sir; I regret that, owing to the reductions effected in the establishment of the Army Educational Corps last year, it is impossible to allow time promotion of warrant officers, Class 1 and 2, to continue. The acceptance of compensation is therefore not optional, but the alternative would have been the discharge of those concerned in addition to the other

discharges which were necessary on reduction of establishment.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: In view of the terms of the War Office letter with reference to this matter, is not this decision a distinct breach of faith?

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: It is admitted that a promise of employment was held out to these officers, but owing to the exigencies of the public service that promise could not be carried out and generous compensation was substituted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I should like to ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go to-night, in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended.

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take no business except the Air Votes after eleven o'clock. Of course, if there be time before, we will take other Orders on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 160.

Division No. 56]
AYES.
[4.6 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell


Alnsworth, Captain Charles
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Bruford, R.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Bruton, Sir James
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Button, H. S.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Banks, Mitchell
Cadogan, Major Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cautley, Henry Strother
Edge, Captain Sir William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ednam, Viscount


Becker, Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Berry, Sir George
Churchman. Sir Arthur
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Clayton, G. C.
Falcon, Captain Michael


Blundell, F. N.
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Brass, Captain W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Flanagan, W. H.


Briggs, Harold
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Foreman, Sir Henry


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major William
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington. W.)


Furness, G. J.
Lorden, John William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Ganzoni Sir John
Lorimer, H. D.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Gardiner, James
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Gates, Percy
Lynn, R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandon, Lord


Goff, Sir R. Park
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shepperson, E. W.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gretton, Colonel John
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Gulnness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Mason, Lieut-Col. C. K.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Mercer, Colonel H.
Singleton, J. E.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Skelton, A. N.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'I.W.D'by)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sparkes, H. W.


Halstead, Major D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stanley, Lord


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Morris, Harold
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Harrison, F. C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Harvey, Major S. E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, C. K.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sutcliffe, T.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hlley, Sir Ernest
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hopkins, John W. W.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pease, William Edwin
Tubbs, S. W.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland. N.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Penny, Frederick George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, Capt. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hughes, Collingwood
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Waring, Major Walter


Hume, G. H.
Perring, William George
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hurst. Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Peto, Basil E.
Wells, S. R.


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Pielou, D. P.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Whitla, Sir William


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Willey, Arthur


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Privett, F. J.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Winterton, Earl


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Raine, W.
Wise, Frederick


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Wolmer, Viscount


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lamb, J. Q
Reld, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Yerburgh, R D. T.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Remer. J. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow. C.)
Remnant, Sir James



Lewis, Thomas A.
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Gibbs.


Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)



NOES.


Adams, D.
Cairns, John
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Greenall, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Chapple, W. A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Charleton. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Attlee, C. R.
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, T.


Barnes, A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Collison, Levi
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bonwick, A.
Duffy, T. Gavan
Harbord, Arthur


Briant, Frank
Duncan, C.
Hardle, George D.


Broad, F. A.
Dunnico, H.
Harris, Percy A.


Bromfield, William
Ede, James Chuter
Hay. Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Brotherton, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday. Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)


Buchanan, G.
Fairbairn, R. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle. E.)


Buckle, J.
Falconer, J.
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)


Burgess, S.
Foot, Isaac
Herriotts, J.


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hill, A.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Hinds, John




Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Pontofract)


Hogge, James Myles
Mosley, Oswald
Snell, Harry


Irving Dan
Muir, John W.
Snowden, Philip


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Murnin, H.
Stephen, Campbell


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Nichol, Robert
Sullivan, J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
O'Grady, Captain James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Thornton, M.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Phillips, Vivian
Turner, Ben


Kenyon, Barnet
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, lnce)


Kirkwood, D.
Potts, John S.
Warne, G. H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pringle, W. M. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lansbury, George
Richards, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Webb, Sidney


Leach, W.
Riley, Ben
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Weir, L. M.


Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Welsh, J. C.


Linfield, F. C.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wheatley, J.


Lowth, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead. E.)


MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Whiteley, W.


M'Entee, V. L.
Royce, William Stapleton
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


McLaren, Andrew
Saklatvala, S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Salter, Dr. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


March, S.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Sexton, James
Wintringham, Margaret


Martin F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, E.)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Maxton, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W.


Middleton, G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Millar, J. D.
Simpson, J. Hope



Morel, E. D.
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Amnon and Mr. Lunn.


Question put, and agreed to.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

LIQUOR TRADE (STATE MANAGEMENT).

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the State management of the liquor trade in Carlisle, and to move a Resolution. — [Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. Holbrook.]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of the abolition of capital punishment, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Dunnico.]

HOUSING.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the housing conditions of the working classes, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Stephen.]

WAR PENSIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT).

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921. 
The Bill is to provide that, for the purposes of the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, where an officer or man who has left, the Naval, Military or Air Force Service is, or at any time after the date
of his leaving such service has been, found to be suffering from tuberculosis, neurasthenia or any other disease or incapacity which could reasonably be attributed to war service, he shall be deemed to be suffering from a disease attributable to Naval, Military or Air Force service, as the case may be, unless or until it is shown that the tuberculosis or neurasthenia or other disease or incapacity was not attributable to such service, and for the purposes of this provision acceptance for such service shall be conclusive that at the time of joining such service the officer or man was not suffering from any such disease or incapacity. I am certain that the House and the country wish to see full justice done to the ex-service men and their dependants. Each respective Minister of Pensions who has undertaken the task of responsibility in that direction has oftentimes so expressed himself in this Chamber. The present Pensions Minister has voiced his regret that a course has had to be taken under certain regulations which have made it impossible for him to do as he would like in connection with many cases. The purpose of this Bill is to help him, if at all possible, and to remove the inability which he expresses to aid these particular cases. I think we are right in saying that experience gathered during the operation of the existing Acts, Warrants, and Regulations
fully demonstrates the need, not only for the acceptance of new principles, but for a complete revision of the existing machinery. If these be the facts—and I believe I am correctly putting the position—steps ought to be taken to enable the obvious wishes of the Ministry, the Members of this House and the people of the country to be put into effect.
I wish, as concisely as possible, to give one or two reasons in support of the proposal which we put forward. Every Member of this House would, I am sure, desire to try not to forget that when the men were asked to volunteer or were conscripted certain pledges were entered into. Under those sacred pledges, it appears to be quite fair to ask that where a man is suffering from a disease or incapacity which can easily be attributed to his war service, the onus of proof that such disability is not so attributable shall rest entirely and completely on the Pensions Ministry. Under the present system of working, that responsibility attaches to applicants, who have personally to prove their pension right or entitlement, but round this regulation of proof of entitlement, which at present rests on the individual, all sorts of conditions have been set up, which make it extremely difficult for any man to prove such claim, and I believe this fact largely accounts for the number of difficult cases with which the Minister is called upon to deal from time to time. I know quite well that a great deal of good has been done through the Pensions Ministry, and that much satisfaction has followed in many directions from the efforts which have been made under the present and the past Regulations, but despite everything which has been done, everyone in this House and outside knows that there are difficult cases by the score and by the hundred, and that very many such cases are submitted to Members of this House every day of the week. In addition to that, questions are being continually addressed to the Minister, or cases are being presented to him in private, by Members of this House, and the Minister has told, not only myself, but I suppose every other Member who has presented a case to him, that he finds himself powerless to act in the direction which he himself would like to do. What is the type of case which comes within this proposed Bill? I know it will be un-
desirable and unnecessary to ask Members to pay particular attention to specific instances, but in order to show that there is a real necessity for this proposal, I will mention one or two striking instances.
I have before me the case of a man now afflicted with blindness. He was perfectly fit before being called upon for service, and he contracted some disease while on service. That unfortunate fellow can now secure no redress from the Ministry of Pensions. He is told by that Department that there is no Regulation which permits his case to be brought under review. He is also refused assistance by the hospital at St. Dunstan's, because the Ministry cannot recognise his claim. There is in that particular case every justification for our plea, that, where a man was admitted in full vigour of health as fit for service, he should, when he comes out broken in health and ruined in constitution, be entitled to a pension. I can give another case where the dependants of a man who has died are denied assistance by reason of the fact that a man's pension can date only from the first date of his discharge. I can give many cases, which I know are within the knowledge of every Member of the House, to prove the contention with which we are endeavouring to persuade the House to accept this little proposal.
We want to give the Minister such authority as will prevent this difficult type of case arising from time to time. Many Members may think that there are only a few such cases, but the last time I put this question to the Minister of Pensions he told me that there were 250,000 cases which had been turned down on appeal, and that there were many others still waiting consideration. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but that answer was given by his predecessor. In addition, many appeals have been dismissed, although it is admitted on every side that shocking circumstances do undoubtedly exist. There is every reason why this Measure should be brought into operation. I am merely stating an accepted fact when I claim that this House has no desire that pension cases should be sent to the Poor Law authorities. But the present policy, under the existing Regulations and under the operation of the Pensions Act of 1921, is sending many hundreds of these cases to obtain
assistance from the Poor Law authorities and is shifting the burden of responsibility from the National Exchequer to the local ratepayers. The proposal which we are making this afternoon would largely destroy that unpleasant and sordid association. I desire, in a few concluding sentences, to appeal for the unanimous support of the House, and I want to say that my case is supported by generals up and down the country and by the British Legion, and I think, if this Measure could be accepted, we should find means whereby the present misery and privation might be ended and a better system created for the assistance of these unfortunate men.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frederick Roberts, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Lawson, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Mr. George Hall, and Mr. Robert Jones.

WAR PENSIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL,

" to amend the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the administration of criminal justice in England; and otherwise to amend the criminal law." [Criminal Justice Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Explosives Act, 1875." [Explosives Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Darlington, parts of Holland, Nottingham, Stockton-on-Tees, Thurrock, Grays, and Tilbury Joint Sewerage District, and Wimbledon." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and reduce the capital of the South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Company; and to make other provisions with
reference to the capital and affairs of the company." [South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

RATING RETURNS BILL,

" to enable overseers and assessment committees outside the Metropolis to obtain Returns," presented by Mr. RAWLINSON; supported by Mr. George Roberts, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Bruford, Mr. Evan Davies, and Sir Robert Newman; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

RENT RESTRICTIONS (NOTICES OF INCREASE) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:

" That, in the case of the Smethwick Corporation (Gas) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Wise.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Colonel Lambert Ward; and had appointed in substitution: Major Molloy.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Brigadier-General Cockerill; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

EXPLOSIVES BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[REPORT, 14th March.]

Resolutions reported,

AIR ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 38,000 all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,508,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,799,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,351,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which wilt come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,870,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I should hardly have ventured to intervene for the first time in the Debates of this House on a question of such importance as that which we are about to discuss this afternoon, if I had not been assured of that generous indulgence which the House always extends to speakers in such circumstances. Let me say at once that I think it is impossible to regard without grave disquiet the position of inferiority to which our Air Forces have sunk in relation to those of other European Powers. It is not that I am apprehensive regarding the existing strategic situation—I am coming to that—but what
I think is alarming is the slow awakening of public opinion, and of those who study strategic questions rather from the naval and military points of view, to the growing power of the air as a factor in war. After all, the fundamental strategical conception on which our power has been maintained in the past, and is now maintained, is that our shores can be rendered inviolable and our trade protected by the Navy. That is the protection of our merchants on the coasts of every country in the world, and the safety of our homes. That is the reason why the people of this country insist on the maintenance, and, in my opinion, rightly insist on the maintenance, of a one-power naval standard. But the development of aviation, I submit, has now reached a point when we have to consider whether air-power will not in the future neutralise, or even destroy, sea-power. Let us assume that a hostile aerial force obtains the mastery of the air. Consider some of the objectives—the seat of government, great centres of population, naval bases, oil fuel depots of the Navy, workshops— all of which lie at the mercy of a force which has attained ascendancy in the air. What then will it have profited the Navy to have held its air forces in reserve while the decisive air battle was being fought out elsewhere?
It may be objected that, in point of fact, no decision will be obtained in the air in the next war. I think those who take that line have not fully considered the rapid developments which have taken place, and are continuing to take place, in the range and power of the modern aeroplane. In 1914, London was safe from aeroplane attack. In 1918, we were planning, with every prospect of success, an attack on Berlin. In 1920 the Atlantic was flown, and I am confident that this year, or next year, aeroplanes will have encircled the globe. Therefore, I submit that in the next war there is no reason to suppose that we shall not be exposed to aerial attack from East of the Rhine or even East of the Vistula. Even with the comparatively small air force employed in the last War a local mastery in the air was attained in two campaigns, first of all in the Italian campaign, where, for some time, the Italians had a complete mastery over the Austrians in the air, and also in Palestine, where our airmen had a similar mastery over the Germans and Turks.
Therefore, it has seriously to be considered what would happen if a hostile air force obtained the mastery of the air over these islands. What would be the objective, in the first place, of a hostile air force which believed itself to be stronger than our Air Force? I am quite sure that, on the expiry of the ultimatum, or the declaration of war, enemy aeroplanes would immediately cross their frontiers, and they might aim their first blow straight at the heart of their enemy's country. They might come straight to London, but, I am inclined to think, all principles of strategy would impel them to smash up our Air Force, and destroy the aerodromes and factories, on which they depend, so as to give it no chance to recover. If it were able to do that it would at once enjoy all the fruits of unchallengeable air power.
What would be the strategy of an inferior Air Force? Let me say at once that I have no faith in defence from the land. Let research go on, but, in the last War, I submit that it proved to be costly, and, with the exception, possibly, of some influence on the moral of the invading airmen, it was wholly ineffective. It may be contended that if we have a very email, highly-trained air force, with great superiority in technical equipment, it will be able to repeat the same sort of daring tactics by which Drake brought the Spanish Armada to confusion. That may be the best way of attacking a hostile air force greatly superior in numbers. On the other hand, it may be that counter attack will be the best form of defence. All these questions arc for the Air Staff, and not for this House, to consider. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), in his brilliant and suggestive speech—if he does not think it impertinent of me to say so—which he made on this subject the other day, said we must not wait for the invading aeroplanes. We should not have to wait very long. The moment war is declared, if we are involved, I am convinced that the enemy aeroplanes will be in the air over this country, and the beet we can hope is that our air force will be as quick off the mark as the enemy air force. But whatever strategy, or whatever tactics our air force may pursue, whatever may be their plan of operations in such circumstances, one thing is certain, that
an inferior air force cannot shelter itself in canals or behind islands and minefields. A decision will be forced, if not in one battle, then in two, three, or successive battles.
Therefore, I think we have to consider, if we are to estimate the extent of the gravity of this peril, what objective will lie before an air power which has mastery in the air. I hope it has been considered that it will be very difficult in the next war to carry on the Government, to make London the headquarters of our fighting operations, and to carry on all the affairs of the administrative and supply Departments, if we are going to be subjected to a great aerial bombardment day after day, night after night. There are also our communications and munition factories. In the last War, it often happened that our factories had to bank-up their fires and stop work, and that will happen on an infinitely greater scale with a larger air force. Therefore I am inclined to believe that operations will be dominated, to an increasing extent both by land and sea, by air power. If this be correct, it follows that the establishment and maintenance of an independent air service is of vital consequence to this country. Only in that way can you get this problem considered by airmen, who have been trained in the air, who have extended their experience by fighting in the air, and in future years by men who have learned from those men who fought in the War. We require an aerial organisation capable of rapid expansion on foundations which will have to be laid, and we require an independent air force to meet the strategic needs of the Empire. Whether it be right or wrong that we should be in Iraq does not arise on this Debate, but, if we are there, I think the Air Minister has already proved that there is no better way of holding that country and maintaining our power there, and no more cheap or more efficient way, than by the Air Force.
Consequently it is of paramount importance that nothing should be done to weaken the Air Force, or to circumscribe the functions of the Air Staff. The control of such forces as will be assigned to the naval or military commanders will. of course, be absolute for the purpose of operations. The Secretary of State in his speech made it quite clear that the Air Staff would not attempt to controvert that principle. But the doctrine of air
warfare must be expounded by men who have learned the business by fighting in the air, and promotion must be determined by efficiency in air work, not by efficiency in naval and military work, and not merely by seniority in the naval or military service. Research, design and supply must all be under the trained Air Staff. The unconscious tendency of naval and military officers must inevitably be to cramp the development of a service which threatens the supremacy of their own in their own element. You might as well entrust the development of tanks to cavalry officers. No longer are aeroplanes the handmaiden of the older Services. No longer can the Air Force be regarded as an ancillary Service. It must be managed by men who are resolved to make it a dominant factor in war, and it can only be developed by an independent Air Staff. I ventured just now to refer to design. I would like to stress that point. I think that, so long as we are in a position of inferiority in numbers, it is of supreme importance that we should give to our airmen the best possible technical advantages. The Secretary of State, in his introductory speech, stated that research was going on on certain lines. I, personally, would have preferred to see a larger proportion of the Appropriation devoted to research. But I hope the Secretary of State will be able to assure us that more is going on, perhaps, than he was able to explain to the House in public.
One of the characteristics which distinguishes air power from sea and land power, to which I wish to invite the attention of the House, is its capacity for rapid expansion. That is why we must lay the foundation well in the meantime, for—given the plant, pilots, mechanicians, draftsmen—it is a dangerously flexible weapon; we must be prepared, therefore, to expand at least as rapidly as any likely hostile Power. That means, of course, that civil aviation is the only possible foundation for such an expansion as I am suggesting. I know the difficulties are considerable. It is easy to make facile comparisons with what is done in Canada, or the United States, or in European countries, but they do not lead us anywhere. Here we are faced with the competition of a highly organised and, on the whole, a wonderful efficient system of transport. There is the Manchester to
London service, which shows us what can be done, and it seems to me that much can be done by careful extension. I hope that, in every way they possibly can, the Air Ministry, seeing they cannot organise a service of this kind themselves, will encourage civil aviation. Why should we not have a service from London to Glasgow, from here to the Highlands of Scotland, and round the coast In all these ways there is every opportunity for civil aviation. As people take more to the air there are great opportunities which I hope will be encouraged to the utmost by the Government. In the meantime, the sporting side should not be neglected. On this ground I welcome the announcement that prizes are to be given for flying, for you are encouraging in that way men with a scientific mind, and men with a sporting kind of character, but with slender resources, who cannot afford to fly in the ordinary way. This will encourage them to take up the science of aviation.
The principal development, after all is said and done, and after all these ways have been explored, as they ought to be explored, "in order to get the nation into the air," as the hon. Gentleman said—it remains true that it is in the Imperial and European services that we have our best hopes of constituting this mercantile service in the air. On such a mercantile service the aviation industry would rely for its development: it would be a nursery for our aid pilots, draftsmen and mechanicians. Just as the fishermen round our coasts and the mercantile marine are the foundation of our sea power, so such a mercantile service in the air would be the foundation of our air power. There is a great future for civil aviation, but I am not going to discuss that now, except to say that it appears to mo that the Department ought, in view of all the circumstances, to give civil aviation all the encouragement in its power. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Report of the Hambling Committee with its valuable and instructive suggestions, and I hope that action will follow that Report. Civil aviation must be the bone and sinew of our aerial power just as the Royal Air Force, and its scientific establishments will be its eyes and brain.
While, however, expressing the view that there is urgent need without loss of time to lay well and truly the foundations
of our security in the air, and that this need imposes upon this House the obligation to give full support to the Air Ministry and the Air Force, I would still like to say that I do not share the apprehension which has been expressed in certain quarters regarding the present strategical situation and present relative strength—I have been dealing with the future up till now—the present relative strength of the French Air Forces and our own. It has been suggested that we are being overshadowed by France, that she is building up a great Air Force with which to bully us into submission to her policy. Frankly, I think such talk is nonsense, and the idea of competition is foolish and dangerous. I am glad the Secretary of State has made it clear that he, on his part, will be no party to such a policy. We cannot, I submit, consent to remain indefinitely and permanently in a condition of inferiority to any Power, certainly not to any other European Power, in the air, but the French make it clear that their armaments at the present are designed to meet a particular international situation in Europe which they hope will find a solution in the near future, and which will give them that security to which they feel their stupendous exertions in the War entitle them.
France regards herself as the warden of the new Europe, the upholder of the Peace Treaty, and she is greatly concerned for her security, and for the security of her Allies, Poland and Czechoslovakia, who fought on the side of the Allies in the Great War. To my mind it is preposterous to think in the immediate future of an outbreak of hostilities between France and us. We are bound to France, not only by ties of sentiment, but also by ties of actual interest, and it seems to me that if we were to contemplate the possibility of hostilities between France and ourselves, the outlook would be so dark, not only for this country, but for Europe, that abstract discussion on military and aerial strategy would seem to be almost beside the point. But if such a catastrophe should happen and the Powers of Europe were ranged into two groups with France and ourselves on opposite sides, it must be remembered that France has no independent air service. Her air services would be allotted to the units of
the Army, so many squadrons, or groups, to each corps or army in the field, and they would be watching the frontiers of France. The 2,000 aeroplanes of which mention has been made will not suddenly one morning appear over London. In the meantime the Navy—and I am talking again of the existing situation, which I think is altering—the Navy would not accept that passive rôle which was forced upon it by the circumstances of the late War.
Those who complain of French militarism should remember that to a Frenchman—conscious of no aggressive intention—it seems that the French army can be of very much less danger to this country and the interests of this country than the British Navy can be to the interest of France. From that standpoint it seems to a Frenchman even more absurd to believe that the French Army is a menace to British interests than that the British Navy is a menace to French interests. As I say, however, seeing we cannot contemplate the permanent maintenance of the present relative strength, the question then arises: is France more likely to reduce her air strength or we to increase ours? There are two factors making for reduction in French aircraft. Firstly, there is the work of the League of Nations which I hope will have the strong support of the Government. In September last a Mixed Guarantee Commission was appointed to consider the possibility of drafting an agreement whereby the frontiers of the European Powers would be for the future guaranteed and that some measure of disarmament would follow. I remember that proposal was accepted in principle by the French delegate and it was made quite clear that, if security could be assured to France, she would accept, at any rate, the principle of the proposed agreement. There is another factor that will make for reduction in the French Air Forces and in French armaments generally and that is the economical and financial situation. After all, the financial position in France has not yet been boldly faced. German Reparations, it is quite certain now, will provide no solution to the French Finance Minister's problem. Undoubtedly the French taxpayer, when he has been assured of security, will be no more willing than the British taxpayer to maintain and support unnecessary armaments. The French tax-
payer will be insistent upon reduction of French armaments. One factor, obviously, making for an increase rather than a decrease in the French Air Force would be that we should enter into competition with them, for then the whole national pride of France would be ranged behind her Air Force which would become a symbol of prestige to France and, in my humble submission, we would never be able to catch them up. The Secretary of State spoke about it taking £17,000,000 to be where France would be in 1925. If we were to compete we should not find them there in 1925 any longer. They would have passed on. Such a policy would never be assented to by the people of this country. It would damage the relations and dissolve the ties between this country and France, would nullify the efforts of the League of Nations, and I am quite convinced it has very little support in this House. Great is the responsibility of the Secretary of State in deciding and in striking a balance between the strategic needs of this country in the air and the no less imperative demands of economy. Long and bitter will be the conflicts which await him in the Council Chamber of the Committee of Imperial Defence, where the representatives of the Air Ministry will encounter the prejudices antagonistic to the claims and aspirations of the Air Force and a majority of military and naval officers of high rank and great experience and prestige. I believe that be will receive the consistent and active support of this House and of public opinion in the country in his plans to avert that which of all war perils will be the swiftest in its approach and the most devastating in its effects. The instinct of the British people for peace and disarmament will not be satisfied unless the Government puts itself consistently behind the League of Nations initiative for peace and disarmament and strongly behind the action of the mutual guarantee sub-Commission. It is not in spite of this love for peace and disarmament, but because of it, that the British people have prospered in the past. Profound and living military truths may be illustrated from the earliest battles of recorded history. In resuming my seat with grateful appreciation of the patience with which the House has listened to me, I would like to invite its attention to that epoch-making battle, the
Battle of Cressy, where the lightly-armed British bowmen met and vanquished the flower of the chivalry of Frence. Those French knights were armed cap-a-pie by the finest armourers of France and Spain as they struggled to charge through the Cressy marshes. The nations of Europe are engulfed to-day in a financial and economic morass. They are exhausted by their exertions in the War. Their cumbrous weapons are heavier than they can wield, except for a limited time, against an almost helpless foe. Their glittering armaments are less formidable to their enemies than they are to themselves. For my part, I believe that the path of wisdom is rather to build up and restore the health, strength, and vitality of the nation, and, while carefully watching the changing value of the air power factor in the strategical equation, to put our trust less in iron and steel than in the unconquerable spirit of the British people.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: We have all listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member, I do not, however, propose to follow him in his survey of European politics, or possible combination of Powers, because I think it will be better to discuss this matter from the point of view of the general organisation and the general policy to be pursued by this country in co-ordinating our fighting Services. The problem, it seems to me, is the consideration of how best we may move forward to an organisation which will be mainly aerial, without at any period having to reverse our organisation. That is the goal at which we want to aim. If we do that, we should look far ahead, for throe main reasons. Firstly, we have the careers of the officers to consider. Provision has to be made for their future careers. We do not want to take on a large number of men and officers, and then throw them out on the streets, more or less as we have had to throw them out, owing to the economies imposed upon us by the War. Secondly, we have to form a large General Staff. It takes many years to train officers and to form and develop the necessary Staff colleges for training. Thirdly, there is the necessity for saturating the minds of the senior officers with the air spirit, if that is what we conceive to be the fighting of the future. It is for those reasons that I think any organisation which is set up for the control of
our fighting Services should be an organisation which should look many years ahead.
In regard to this matter, I should very strongly deprecate looking upon it merely as a squabble between two Services. This House is responsible to the country and to the taxpayer for the spending of their money in such a manner that it will give them the greatest efficiency possible. Any friction there may be existing between Departments should be removed as soon as possible, because with friction there must be loss of efficiency and loss of money.
In order to study this question I will, if the House will allow me, endeavour to start from the beginning, and in that connection I would take weapons as they have developed throughout history. We have heard this afternoon of the battle of Cressy. I would like to go further back than that—to the beginning of civilisation. How did we start? think the first weapons which a man had were his fists and his teeth. He did not get enough range with those. Then he had a stone dagger. Then he mounted that stone dagger on to a shaft of wood and made a spear—more range. Then he lightened it and made a javelin and threw it—more range. Then he lightened it still further and made a bow and arrow—more range. Then gunpowder was invented and we had the gun. In the War we had a gun with a range of 40 miles. To-day, I understand, France is building a gun (for what reason I cannot conceive) with a range of 70 miles, which could shell London from the coast of France. Now we have a further development of science, which is the aeroplane, which has increased the range to perhaps 500 miles. Since the invention of explosives the purpose of the machine has been to transfer from ourselves to the enemy a certain weight of explosives, and transfer it in such a manner that it may do the enemy the greatest possible damage. That damage used to be done by the gun, which, until the invention of the aeroplane, gave us the greatest range. Now we have the aeroplane, which, by utilising gravity, is able to do away with the gun, and has increased our range to 500 miles, and perhaps more.
If we consider the whole question on that basis, the next thing we have to do is to consider the functions of the fighting Services, because they must, necessarily, use the weapons which science has invented, at any certain time. Therefore, until we have investigated what duties the fighting Services have to perform, we cannot consider how the organisation of those fighting Services should be conceived, in order to use the weapons which science has produced.
I will turn, first of all, to the Navy, because, until recently, that has been our first line of defence. One may say that the Navy has two main functions to perform. One is to secure the sea to our own vessels; the other is to deny the sea to the vessels of the enemy. Those are the Navy's only functions. It does not exist to fight the enemy on the battlefield. That is a supposition which is generally made, but it does not exist for that purpose. That is the military method by which it carries out its political object. The political object of the Navy is to maintain the seas. The military method by which it performs that function is, and has been, to fight the enemy battle fleet. I would stress this point, because I think it is of great importance in the consideration of the whole aerial question. If one takes that point a little further, one finds it is a fallacy to argue that, because we transport merchandise upon the water, it necessarily follows that our military method of protecting that merchandise, or destroying the merchandise of the enemy, should also travel upon the water. I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here, because I venture to disagree with what he said in his speech, namely, that because the water would always support more weight than the air, therefore the military method was always connected with water. I do not think that follows. I submit, with all deference, that he was confusing the political object with the military method. If one agrees to that point, the vital question we have to consider is whether or not the aerial machines which we have to-day contain the possibility of development to such a degree that they may eventually be able to fulfil and carry out the political object for which the British Navy to-day exists, and which the British Navy performs by travelling upon the water. That seems to me the vital issue.
I do not want to enter into any technical discussion, but I would say that the aeroplane to-day, as we know it, is comparatively useless for Imperial purposes, and war on an Imperial scale, as opposed to war between highly civilised and contiguous countries, because it is so limited in its range of action. Until it has a range sufficient for the great ocean trade routes, it can never, in my opinion, be anything but a more or less ancillary device in so far as naval purposes are concerned. Taking that situation, and investigating the position of the Departments to-day, we have the Admiralty responsible for the trade routes, but we have. I think, in prospect a combination of aerial machines, namely, the airship and the aeroplane, which would remove the defect from the aeroplane, and give to it that range of action which has so far militated against it being able to fulfil the political object. If that be so, and I assume it is so, or certainly will be so in the near future, we have this condition. We have a Department of State, the Ministry of Air, which is responsible for all aerial machines, but which is not responsible for the political object, namely, the defence of the trade routes. We have the Admiralty, a Department of State responsible for the defence of the trade routes, but not responsible for, and not concerned with, the development of aerial machines which are to operate upon those routes. That, no doubt, is the reason for the clash between the two Departments. The hon. and gallant Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said that this question was a hardy annual. To my mind, it will remain a hardy annual, because inherently the organisation does not agree with the capabilities and the possibilities of the weapons controlled by these Departments, and it is to the removal of that to which I would respectfully suggest we should turn our attention.
The solution is difficult, unless one comes to a complete combination, from a staff point of view and from an operational point of view, of those Departments which control the activities of mechanical appliances which can operate at great distances, whether those mechanical appliances are aircraft or whether they are watercraft. That would mean, to my mind, a combination of the Admiralty and the Air Ministry in so far as staff work is concerned. It may be the inauguration
of the Ministry of Defence, which may eventually be brought into being.
There is one point which has been made which I should like to take up, that is that you cannot combine two Departments, or two sets of officers and men, with such different conditions of service as those which exist in the air and those which exist in the water. The right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) made a very interesting speech on those lines during the last Debate. The argument he put forward. if he will allow me to say so, is just as good as saying that no man can be a sailor unless he is born with webbed feet If one investigates the actual facts in regard to the air—and here I think the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) will probably disagree with me—one finds that it does not take at all long to become a first-class pilot. If we investigate the actual facts, and not suppositions, we find they are these. The four foremost pilots during the War who brought down the most machines were men who had never had more than six months' training. I have taken the trouble to get out the careers of Major Bishop, Major McCudden, and other officers who were the foremost officers. One officer brought down 57 German machines, and the other officer brought down 47 machines. Major Bishop was four months an observer, and under six months in training. Major McCudden had two hours' instruction before learning to fly; he was under six months in training when he brought down a machine. It does seem to me that when we get these facts it is rather absurd to say that you cannot make a pilot, a flying officer, or an observer unless he is born with wings.
5.0 P.M.
I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes). He made a point which is very important, namely, that what we have to consider are two main arguments: one is the necessity for an independent air striking force, and everybody recognises we do want such a force, and the other is the necessity for co-ordination with the other fighting Services of their tactical units. If one could settle the difficulties between the Services, by giving to each their tactical units, the whole question, to my mind,
would be relatively simple, but I do not think we can settle on these lines, and I do not think any final settlement could be arrived at by merely transferring to the existing Services the control of their tactical units. The question goes deeper.
I would revert to the question of the range of the gun, which we were discussing before. Let me take a case. Take the case of an aircraft carrier under naval command. It is possible now to increase the range of its guns from 15 miles to 400 miles, which is the range of the seaplanes that carry them. We can have no question of a three-mile limit here. Therefore, the aircraft carrier could carry out the operation of bombing a town or a railway centre, or anything else 400 miles inland. If that were done under the existing organisation, we should be told that was an operation immediately for the independent air arm to carry out. Therefore, as the range and power of the aircraft increases, it must also increase the overlapping of your Services if you have them organised separately. Supposing we do not get any formal amalgamation; what is going to happen? The determining factor must of course be the range of your aircraft, and therefore first of all the narrow seas will be mostly controlled by your Air Department. Your range will increase as each year passes, and what is to happen then? I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for Air to visualise the serious controversy in which they would be engaged to determine at what limit their respective responsibilities ceased. I do not see how a system of that character can possibly go on.
Eventually, as the range of your aircraft increased, your Fleet would be operated further and further from your coast so far as your air functions were concerned, and accordingly you would have continual difficulty between your naval and air staff. If that is the final stage, what is the intermediate stage to be? The staff work would be a little breathless, because supposing an operation had to be carried out from the air, I presume the Air Ministry would have its own aircraft carriers and an air officer would be in command of the fleet, and if it were a naval operation it would be under the control of an Admiral. The Admiral and the Air Officer would be dancing to an aerial tune wirelessed from "White-
hall." If the ultimate development is to be an aerial future, it appears to me that what we want is to have such an organisation that the vested interests of the old Services will be not inimicable to the growth of your aerial weapons, but will help them. You have to give them an interest and a future, because if you are to take a small Department—a Department which has to fight for its existence against the vested interests of the older Services—if you are to have a type of organisation which must entail continual controversy as to the duties these Departments must perform, a great deal of effort and time will be wasted. Whereas, if a type of organisation could be achieved which would allow the three Services to co-ordinate and work together, so that it did not matter how much was transferred to aerial control, then I think you would get the efficient service which would work towards the common goal, with the careers of officers and men provided for, and with its own staff work provided for. I would like to see the Secretary of State for Air and the First Sea Lord the political counterparts of the Siamese twins, rather than the political counterparts of the Kilkenny cats.

Mr. TURNER: I am not interested in the technical points which have been so fully dealt with, nor do I desire to deal with this question from the hardy annual point of view; neither am I concerned for the moment with careers for officers. I am wondering where the Washington Convention comes in in connection with the Air Service. I was attracted first of all in the dark days gone by with proposals that came to us indicating 14 points towards peace. Then I was further attracted by the declaration made at the Washington Conference on disarmament of naval, military, and air forces, and I am becoming shocked somewhat by the talk of returning now to the days of brabarism, and the proposals now being made to establish air forces that are going to decimate populations and towns, and to undo any progress there was towards civilisation. I am one of those simple-minded men who believe that force is an evil, and therefore I am starting on the assumption that this development of the Air Force shows a lack of attention to disarmament. Force never civilised anybody; wars have never civilised any nation; and it does seem to
me that in the talk that is taking place all over the world, not only in our own country, that we have forgotten many of the evils of the late War.
When the first bombing raid took place, when the Germans in their wickedness came across and bombarded our towns and our people, a shock went through the whole of the population who were not in the War. When civilians were being destroyed, when the bairns were being killed, when homes were being shattered we were fierce in our denunciations of the vileness and wickedness of the Germans. It seems to me that if bombing was wrong by Germany it is wrong at all times, whether it is done by ourselves or anybody else. I am sorry to find that there seems to be, despite all the talk about a League of Nations and about peace, no real talk about peace. This very House of Commons is infatuated with the desire to prepare a strong Air Force. What is that Force to do? It is bound to be for destruction. We were told in the old days that if you wanted to have peace you must prepare for War. That doctrine is now null and void, because if you prepare for peace by warlike methods you bring about war. I am one of those who believe that a good example is worth setting by any nation, and I therefore want to hear less talk about air forces and naval forces, and a good example set to make towards peace. A bad example is not worth following, and to my mind it is a bad example to develop aerial machinery of destruction. All this talk of preparation for the next war makes me shudder, and wonder whether the ancient doctrines have been forgotten and the wicked examples of warfare have been lost sight of. It would make the old statesmen of the middle of last century turn in their graves to think that we are spending scores of millions upon preparations for war. If Bright and Gladstone came back they would imagine, not that we had got on into the twentieth century, but that we had gone back into the seventeenth or eighteenth century.
I was reading just now a speech made by one of the members of the Ministry in this House, I think in February of last year, in which he declared that the next war, when it comes, will be a war of nation against nation, and a war of the most cruel and destructive character, in which women and children will suffer just
as much as men. I remember the shudder that went through the nation when we were told that the Germans were bombing our women and children. Are we going to continue a policy of wickedness and violation of human life? It seems to me that the whole of the talk on our Air Estimates is based upon that wicked fallacy and that wicked idea. It is time that we had more talk about peace, and less talk about preparation for war. Life is a godly possession, and the destruction of life is an ungodly policy. I want to see the godly policy pursued by this House of Commons, the greatest and the best Parliament in the world, with the best traditions in the world. I want to see those things developed which make towards peace and not towards warfare. Working folks, of course, do not make war; they have never done that; and I wish sometimes that working folks would declare that they would take no part, in warfare on any account whatever. All wars have been failures. You can talk about the old Crusaders, about Cressy and other battles, about naval battles, and so on, but the wars themselves have not been successes as regards what they attempted to do. The enemy may have been beaten, but there has been no success. I would sing at any time, with the old conscript of France who, in 1847, sang that great song:
If I were King of Franco, or, what's better, Pope of Rome,
There'd be no fighting men abroad, nor weeping maids at home.
All the world should be at peace, or, if Kings would show their might,
Let those who make their quarrels be the only ones to fight.
There would be no wars if that were followed out. I do not understand the blue-water school, nor the school of naval force; I do not understand the Army, nor do I understand the technique of the Air Force; but I do understand the moral principles of life, and to my mind the preparation should be, not towards armies of destruction, but towards the creation of motives of peace in general.

Captain BRASS: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). He told us that the Atlantic had been flown in 1920, and he seemed to think that, because the Atlantic happened to have been flown in 1920, we were going to have fights in the air now
instead of fights on the sea and fights on the land. I think he is going a wee bit too far. I do not think there is any analogy between the position of the Navy and the Air Force to-day and that of the tanks and cavalry to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. After all, the Navy is one force and the Air Force is another force, but the tanks and cavalry are merely adjuncts of one particular force. I have listened to the Debates on the Air Estimates, and it seems to me that no one has up to the present explained the reason why the Navy want the present position changed. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut. -Colonel Moore-Brabazon)—I do not see him in his place at the moment, but I hope he will come back in a minute—said that this Debate was a hardy annual, and he referred to my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) as "the noble and reactionary lord." I do not know that he was quite accurate in that statement. I want to know why the Air Board was formed in 1916, and why the Air Ministry was formed in 1918. I think the Air Board and the Air Ministry were formed to avoid competition between the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service at that time, because at that time there was very considerable competition between those two Services. The machines used by both at that time were almost identical; they were machines which flew from the land and landed on the land. Things have changed very much since then, and it was only because the same kind of machine was used by the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service at that time, that it was necessary to have an Air Board or an Air Ministry. The hon. and gallant Member said that the Noble Lord was reactionary, because he always tried to get for the Navy its own Air Service. I contend that it is the hon. Members who oppose that who are reactionary, because they do not realise the difference that has come about since the Air Board was instituted.
Why is it that the Navy want control? They want control because they find that at the present time it is impossible for them to do anything as far as construction is concerned and as far as personnel is concerned. They have to ask the Air Ministry whether they may
have certain officers or not. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day who pays for the Air Force which is attached to the Navy. The Navy have to ask the Air Ministry whether they can have certain machines or not, and that seems to me to be quite a wrong policy. Personally, I think the real solution of this problem, if there be a real solution, is in the end to have a Ministry of Defence over-riding all three Services. It seems to me to be absurd, as was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes), that we should have separate chaplains' services, separate medical services, separate pay and separate clothing services. It would be very much better that there should be a Ministry of Defence over the whole of these other Services. We were told in the Debate last week by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) that the Air Force was our first line of defence. I am afraid I do not. agree with the hon. and gallant Member, except in so far as four or five nations in Europe are concerned. As regards France, or Germany, or Holland, or Belgium, I do agree that our first line of defence is the Air Force, but if you consider the other nations of the world, and try to think what we have a Navy for, I think it will be found that if, outside Europe, the Navy is to defend this country, keep open our trade routes and defend our Dominions, then the Navy, except for those few countries which are round this country, undoubtedly is our first line of defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith referred to the conditions which obtained in the Mediterranean Sea, and I should like to quote from his speech. He said:
I remember quite well that in the Mediterranean we had old trawlers, going about six knots, armed with one ridiculous little gun, firing a six- or twelve-pound shot, toiling away, quite unable: to check what few submarines there were, whereas the whole service might have been mapped out and watched by very few seaplanes, or flying boats, or lighter-than-air craft, a scheme which would have made the life of the submarine impossible in those waters.
He went on to say:
The submarines…. dared not come to the surface for fear they might be spotted and bombed. Therefore, I say that the patrolling of trade routes and the repelling of invasion by sea are work which should be laid on the Air Ministry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1923; cols. 1628 and 1.629, Vol. 169.]
I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member has been up over the sea and has tried to spot submarines from the sky, and, if he has, he will realise as well as I do that it is extremely difficult to see a submarine in choppy water, and to see it at any distance away. I have been up over the Mediterranean and have tried to find submarines, and I found that it was a very difficult thing to do. I contend that, if you are going to have aircraft coming from a land base and going over the middle of the Mediterranean Sea in all sorts of weather, and are going to do away with the Fleet, it will be found extremely difficult to spot submarines and keep our trade routes open by aircraft instead of by the Navy.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me to ask him a question? He will admit, I assume, that it is far easier, even in those circumstances, to spot a submarine, and especially a submarine on the surface, from the air than it would be from the deck of a trawler or other small ship?

Captain BRASS: Yes, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member, but I think the trawler would be able to stay out in very much rougher weather, and would be able to remain out very much longer, looking for submarines, than would be possible, in present circumstances, for aircraft. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is going a little too fast. I agree with him that in the end, probably, we shall have practically the whole of the fighting forces of this country in the air, but I think we want to go a little slower and go step by step and try to organise our fighting forces so that we have the most efficient force we can possibly get together to combat any other force which is likely to come up against us in the future. If we concede, and I think we should concede, that except for a few countries round this island our Navy is undoubtedly our first line of defence for our Dominions and other places, we ought to look into the question whether the Navy, being deprived of control of its air arm as it is at present, is going to be less efficient for that reason than if it had complete control of that arm. Why does the Navy want an air force at all? Obviously they want it for spotting purposes, for reconnaissance purposes, for torpedoing, and so on. But the chief object they
want their Air Force for is for observation purposes.
Undoubtedly the Air Force represents what are termed the eyes of the Navy. Should the eyes of the Navy be under a different control? Should the eyes of the Navy, the people who go up in aeroplanes and seaplanes attached to the Navy, be under the control of another Service? It seems to me to be the wrong thing to do. The Air Ministry at present are able to take away from the Navy the observers and pilots of the seaplanes or aeroplanes which really are part of the Navy at present. At the same time they may control the construction of aircraft. The construction of aircraft is a very big problem. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Admiralty desire a flying boat, which may possibly in the future be able to fold its wings and dive into the sea and may become a sort of submarine. It may be possible in the future. One does not know. Is that boat going to be under the control of the Admiralty or of the Air Ministry? It seems to me it ought naturally to be under the control of the Navy itself, because it would undoubtedly he part of the Fleet.
Another point which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) is the question of airships. In the future we may have airships which take the place of cruisers. The Admiralty may say they find it easier to observe from airships than from light cruisers. Are those air cruisers going to be part of the Navy or part of the Air Force? I contend they ought to be part of the Navy. I do not believe in this theory of floating in the air. I do not believe, because a thing happens to be floating in the air, therefore it must of necessity belong to another force. Look at the position of gun ranging. First of all you have the ordinary gun ranging, where you can stand on the ground. You have gun ranging with the Admiralty where they go into the turret of a ship because they get a little higher up and can see a little further. The officers who observe in the turrets of the ship are naval officers, and they observe as naval officers. You get them a little higher up. You put them into a balloon, and because the balloon happens to float in the air and to be tied down to the deck of the ship by a steel cable, you say the officer in that
balloon no longer belongs to the Navy but is, perforce, an Air Force officer. You put him a little higher up in an aeroplane, and again, you say he is an Air Force officer. But he is doing exactly the same thing, whether he is in the turret of a ship or in a balloon or up in the air, when he is trying to observe for the gun ranging of the Fleet. It seems to me that is rather an absurd position. I was told the other day—I do not vouch for this—that if the Air Ministry wish to make an experiment with aircraft carriers they get the aircraft carriers from the Navy and may possibly go out for two or three weeks making experiments, landing on them and taking off from them, and when they come back the Navy debit the Air Force with the amount of oil that has been used in the experiments which have been taking place to try to make the Navy more efficient.
Another thing I was told, which I believe is perfectly correct, is that a seaplane when in the middle of the Channel had a forced landing. It was towed in by a destroyer. Obviously, a seaplane could not be attached to anything except the Navy, and the Air Ministry was sent in a bill for the oil used by the destroyer in pulling the seaplane back to port. That seems to me to be an absurd position of affairs, and no wonder you have very great difficulty between the Admiralty and the Air Force. It seems to me there is only one solution to this problem. I am not in the least anxious to do away with the Air Ministry. I think it has done a great deal of good and it should continue. But I think the machines which are used by Navy, machines which land on the water or land on or take off from aeroplane carriers, and those only, should be under the control of the Navy and should come under the Navy Estimates, so that the Navy should be able to say what it wants as far as its own particular machines are concerned, because the number of machines the Navy can want is very limited. It is limited by the Washington Conference, to a very large extent, because only 80,000 tons of aeroplane carriers are allowed by the Washington Conference, so it is impossible to have many more than four because they displace about 20,000 tons each. If you gave over to the Navy just the machines they
use on the sea, that is those landing and going off carriers and landing on the sea, you might be able to solve this very difficult problem. I do not think the Navy ought to have a large number of land machines, with a large number of stations all over the world. That part undoubtedly belongs to the Air Force. But I think the Navy should have that very limited amount of aircraft given to it and should be allowed to have it under its own control. If we had good will on the part of the officers of the Air Force and of the Navy the problem, a very difficult one, which concerns the efficiency of our fighting forces, might be solved.

Mr. LAMBERT: The Secretary of State for Air, when he introduced the Estimates, performed a public service in telling us exactly what our air strength was in regard to neighbouring Powers. There is nothing so hateful as to talk of the possibility of future wars after the awful tragedy of the past few years. But here we are, spending enormous sums of money, and it is essential that we should see that the taxpayer is getting value in defensive power for the money he spends. To-day someone ought to be sacked. There is no doubt about that. We are spending scores of millions on defence. The sum to be expended this year is much less than it was last year, and last year was much less than the year before, but I should hesitate to say how many almost hundreds of millions have been spent during the last four years, and yet this city, which is the heart of the Empire, is vulnerable to the attack of a neighbouring Power. I do not say for a moment that France would attack us. I should deprecate very much any policy which would be in the slightest degree inimical to France. I think a peaceful atmosphere between France and ourselves is necessary for the peace of the world and for the benefit of civilisation. I am, however, an Englishman, and do not wish to live on the sufferance of any of my neighbours. When we are spending such enormous sums of money we have a right to ask that the heart of the Empire should be adequately protected.
A very able maiden speech was made just now by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), and he said—I am sure he did not say it truly— that supposing such an inconceivable thing happened as that war took place between Britain and France, the seat of
Government would have to be removed from London somewhere out of the range of aircraft. The Air Minister told us that on a peace basis the French have 1,260 machines and Britain has 371, and for home defence purposes we have five squadrons—I fighting squadron and 4 bombing squadrons—whereas the French have 32 fighting squadrons and 32 bombing squadrons. There are employed in the Air industry in France 9,250 men, and in Britain 2,500. There were built last year in this very vital industry 3,300 machines in France, and only 200 in Britain. Something is wrong when we are spending £128,000,000 a year on defence and we have neglected this vital arm. Someone ought to be sacked. I am certain we are not getting value for our money.
On 8th February Admiral Mark Kerr said the Government had just spent millions on two battleships which in all probability would never come into action. Ten millions of that money would have made Britain safe in the air. The First Lord of the Admiralty compares our Fleet with that of America, America is 3,000 miles away, and war between us and America is unthinkable. We must look nearer home. We are surrounded by the sea, but the characteristics of an island completely disappeared in the last War. I ask the Government that this new Committee which is to be appointed to co-ordinate these Services should get to work at once, and that it should be a strong; Committee, because it has to take the Departments by the scruff of the neck and knock their heads together. Someone said just now there were vested interests. There are very great vested interests, and not only in the way my hon. Friend meant. The dockyards are a very serious matter. You cannot throw these men at once out of work. You must have a policy. You must have a co-ordinating policy. To let each Department go spending wildly in any part of the world upon any arm that it likes is madness. There must be coordination. I cannot understand why the Committee was not appointed long ago. The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) dealt with that subject last week. He knows something about the air. He is one of the very few hon. Members who has had practical experience. We shall have to deal with that ancient unit the naval officer, who wants
to keep the capital ship in order that he may walk up and down the quarter deck. The hansom cab had to go, and the taxi cab has taken its place. The Navy cannot protect London against an aerial enemy. That will have to be the duty of the Air Force. I do strongly protest, and I shall protest as long as I have a seat in this House, that we are spending £50,000,000 a year more than we did before the War in defence, and yet we leave London, the heart of the Empire, vulnerable to invasion.
Now I turn to a matter which interests me very much, and that is our policy in regard to the Air Force in Mesopotamia. I do not know really who is controlling the Air Force there, but we are committing all the faults that were committed during the War. During the War we sent our troops everywhere that it was possible to send them. If there was any God-forsaken place, there the British troops were sent. This scatter-brain policy and scatter-brain strategy has given us 34 air squadrons. Out of those 34 air squadrons, 18 are in Egypt and Mesopotamia, 6 in India, 4 are with the Navy, I with the Army and 5 are left for home defence. With respect to the squadrons in Mesopotamia, the Air Minister replied to a question the other day about the camp near Bagdad. We have spent nearly £1,000,000 in establishing an Air Force camp there, and there is something like £320,000 more to be spent. Does the Air Minister mean to go on with that? Do let us have a little sense of proportion. Are we to spend £1,300,000 on an Air Force camp at Hinaidi, five miles from Bagdad and hundreds of thousands of pounds in establishing other Air Force camps all over Mesopotamia? The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the items in connection with the Air Force camp was a hospital.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I should like to know from the Secretary of State for Air whether there is an item on this Vote for this work?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. Hoare): Vote A deals only with the personnel of the Air Force, but I understood from Mr. Speaker that he was prepared to allow a general debate on Vote A, I think, on the assumption that details which were raised upon Vote A would not be raised on the sub-
sequent Votes. The camp comes in a subsequent Vote, and I suggest that you should allow the general debate to be taken now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given me a complete answer to my question, and resolved any doubt in my mind, so that the right hon. Member for South Molton is in order.

Mr. LAMBERT: The hospital to be erected will provide 600 beds for British and Indian personnel. What sort of a camp is it intended to have there? How many men is it intended to keep there? I know it is an extremely unhealthy place, but 600 beds means that this is to be a permanent institution. What about our evacuating Mesopotamia? That is a question which I hope my right hon. Friend will answer. I understand that all the military and air forces in Mesopotamia are under the Air Ministry. I was very much interested the other day to see a report of the hardships that our men arc suffering in being sent to Mosul. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is responsible, but I remember that the first intimation that we had of the terrible sufferings of our wounded troops on the journey from the Battle of Ctesiphon down the Tigris was contained in private letters from private soldiers to their homes. The authorities kept it very dark. Here is a private letter published in this morning's Press. It is from a man telling of the march of 100 miles the other day from Bagdad towards Mosul:
Never shall I forget the march, from nine o'clock in the morning till after midnight, across country like a quagmire, a terrific wind blowing and rain and sleet beating down. The cold was awful. Miserable! I was never so miserable for some years.
The letter goes on to say:
Before saying more I must really comment on Churchill's scheme for large troop-carrying aeroplanes to rush troops up at any emergency. There are quite a number of them in the country, but how they were utilised in this present affair is a mystery to the average soldier. We all of us knew that none of them carried us up to Mosul, and none of us has yet met anyone who was carried up by them.
He goes on to describe Mosul, the place where we are so ready to send our troops:
All the population are extremely dirty and verminous. Seventy-five per cent. of the people are disease carriers.
If we can find a spot which is a disease area we send British troops there. That was done during the War. The right hon. Gentleman answered a question about the tax collector. There are 100,000 armed tribesmen in Mesopotamia and the taxes have to be collected from them. The Air Force is in charge and as the local police are quite incapable of dealing with these tribesmen, it has to be done by the Air Force. Are you going on with a policy under which in order to collect taxes bombs are dropped on innocent people? That is the only way, I suppose, you can do it. My right hon. Friend denies it, and I am sure it is repugnant to him. How are you going to do it otherwise? These men will not pay their taxes. How are you going to deal with them by your Air Force if you do not compel them? Why should the Air Force be put at the service of the civil authority as they are in Mesopotamia? I do not blame the Air Force officers in Mesopotamia. It is a horrible duty. My right hon. Friend and the Government could obviate it by taking the Air Force away. It is surely not the idea of British justice to kill and maim the innocent. I should have no hesitation whatever in bringing the Air Force away; but I realise that it may not be possible to do that for some time. I hope that we shall have the Committee set up in order to bring the whole forces together, and to ensure that the taxpayers' money is properly spent. I hope the Committee will be set up at once. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the Committee I Has it been appointed? It is a long time since it was announced.

Commander BELLAIRS: It is a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone knows, but the Air Minister does not know. I have asked the Air Minister, and apparently he cannot give me the names. I press the point that the Committee should be a strong Committee, that it should be appointed at once, and that the taxpayers' money shall be spent to the best advantage for defensive purposes.

Commander BELLAIRS: It is very significant of the trend of public opinion that in the three Debates we have had on the fighting Services nearly every speaker has supported in some form or
another a Ministry of Defence. Everybody seems to be persuaded that we have to reconcile the three Services and bring them together. That is a very significant change of opinion. This was first proposed by Lord Randolph Churchill on Lord Hartington's Committee in 1888. The right hon. Member for South Molton speaks of this Sub-Committee as a new Committee. We had it promised to us last year, and we must insist on a speedy decision, and against its being put off from year to year. The Committee of Imperial Defence is being used largely as a means of getting rid of opposition in the House, and not attaining results. I do hope that under the present Prime Minister we shall obtain results.
The right hon. Member who has just sat down has attacked the Estimates from the point of view of Mesopotamia. I want to attack them along the whole line, to some extent, because no other speaker has done so, and perhaps my doing so will draw an answer from the Secretary of State. In the first place, if we deduct the military expenditure in Mesopotamia which properly belongs to the Army, there is a total air expenditure for Great Britain of £17,689,000. I have added together the French Army Estimates for the year, the French Navy Estimates for the year, and the French Civil Estimates for the year, and I cannot make them more than £5,656,000, at the rate of exchange of the moment, or £6,303,150 at 70 francs to the £. We are, therefore, spending over three times as much as France on Air Estimates, and only getting one-quarter of the results, because we are told that France is four times as strong as we are in the air. The stock answer is that France has conscription.
6.0 P.M.
But that does not account for the whole of this difference. There are three main causes. First there are the overhead expenses. If a private firm goes into business its object is to keep the overhead expenses as low as possible, but we have seen in connection with one or two Ministries—one was called the grandiose Ministry—that the object was to put up the overhead expenses. The overhead expenses are very great in the case of the Air Ministry. The hon. Member for Chatham spoke of the Admiralty as the biggest bureaucracy in the world. Had
I been able to get into the Debate on a previous occasion I could have shown by a comparison between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry that the Admiralty costs less than double what the Air Ministry does, but the Admiralty administers four and a half times as many men. In addition to that it has much greater reserves. In addition to that it has a tremendous non-effective Vote of £7,899,000 as compared with £131,000 for the Air Ministry. That is a Vote you cannot get over. It is a legacy from the past. And with all that extra administration which the Admiralty has if the Admiralty is the greatest bureaucracy in the world, what are we to say of the Air Ministry when it costs so much? Then take recruiting, the expenses for the whole Navy, with three times the naval personnel, are the same. That is, £24,000. Why should it cost three times as much to get an airman as it does to get a sailor?
Then there is another cause. In the air personnel there is the exact opposite of what we were promised under a single Air Ministry. We get great duplication of personnel. In France, working with the army, a great deal of the duties of the groundmen is done by ordinary army service men. That is not the case with our personnel from the Air Ministry. In the navy those who go on board the aircraft carriers, in connection with French or American naval personnel, do not carry their own mechanics. The mechanics are there. We should not increase our mechanics in the least degree if we administered our naval air force. We would just train up some of the men who are there to deal with the air work. The result is that the personnel associated with the total French naval and military air force is almost exactly the same as the personnel associated with the British Air Force, although France has four times as many planes. The personnel to which we are working is 33,000 on these Estimates. The personnel for the French air force, army and navy is 33,516.
The third great cause of expenditure is that the Air Ministry seems to have gone in for a tremendous policy of bricks and mortar. Instead of putting expenditure into the air they have put it down into the ground. Take only one item. In the home station, Great Britain, for the school at Halton and for the married
quarters we are spending no less than £2,147,000. I do not wonder that the Air Minister, in dealing with the works question, said, "I need not dwell on this part of our administration," and he passed to where they had scored conspicuous success, for they have scored success in Mesopotamia. I cannot find either in the Air Estimates for 1922 or 1923 anything about the Staff College at Andover. We know that there is a Staff College there, but I cannot find it either under the head of "Andover" or of "Staff College." These Estimates are not at all clear. You are bound to have your three Staff Colleges together, and yet you have deliberately gone away from the Army and had your Staff College created at Andover. You will have to scrap it. The Navy itself long ago recognised that as soon as expenditure allowed it has got to remove the Naval Staff College from Greenwich to Camberley, so as to be in intimate touch with the military staff.
While I am on the subject of administration let me also point out that the Navy is now spending less on staff work than the Air Ministry. The total expenditure on the air staff is £116,000, and on the naval staff £94,000. The duties which the Air Ministry has to meet in the way of staff work are not commensurate with what the Navy has to do, with all its vast responsibilities. The Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) fell foul of us who believe in a separate Air Force for the Navy. Ho said that we were guilty of insanity. I do not believe that my Noble Friend represents Oxford in that matter. When he issues his Papal bulls against us, he is excommunicating not merely individuals but whole communities, not merely the Navy, because the Navy are unanimous on the point, but he is excommunicating every other country in the world that has got an air force, because all these other countries have a separate air force for the navy and for the army. The United States, France, Japan, and Italy have separate air forces for the navy and for the army. I have here the Report of a Committee which was appointed by President Harding, representing civilians, the services, and the different Government departments. It was appointed in 1921, and reported very
quickly on this important question, and here is what they say:
Aviation is inseparable from the national defence. It is necessary to the success of both the army and the navy. Each should have complete control of the character and operations of its own air service.
My Noble Friend says that that is insanity. We were constantly told that our present organisation, which differs from that of the whole world, is based on war experience, but the House must remember when we are told that, that we have got General Trenchard, as Chief of the Air Staff now, and the House was supplied with a memorandum by him, dated 19th November, 1919, with a covering note from Mr. Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Air, and in that memorandum General Trenchard expressly lays down that ultimately there may be a separate naval air force. He says:
The principle to be kept in mind in forming the framework of the Air Service is that in future the main portion of it will consist of an Independent Force together with service personnel required in carrying out aeronautical research. In addition there will be a small part of it specially trained for work with the Navy, and a small part specially trained for work with the Army, these two small portions probably becoming, in the future, an arm of the older Services.
That is the whole of our case. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) pointed out just now, the reason for the creation of an Air Ministry was that the Navy and Army were competing for material together, and the resources of the nation were not equal to it. At this moment the Navy, and I believe the Army, are willing that the Air Force shall continue to administer the supply of material. All we ask, and all that the Navy ever has asked, is that its requirements shall be maintained, that it shall be able to say what are its fighting requirements, and that those fighting requirements shall be attended to. If I did criticise the material supplies, I would say that the Air Ministry is not paying nearly enough attention to civil aviation, and is thereby starving the resources of the nation, so that we have only got about a quarter of the people employed in workshops on aircraft that France has at this moment. According to one estimate which I have seen published, even when the Navy works up to the 84 aeroplanes towards
the end of the year, they will only have half the aeroplanes which the United States Navy possesses. In the critical part of our negotiations with Turkey last year, when hostilities might have occurred at any moment, the Navy on the spot was all right so far as floating capacity was concerned, but it had only six aeroplanes with it. That is the kind of thing that causes naval officers to be profoundly anxious as to the future.
The gravamen of our charge is not in connection with material. It is that the present Air Force as trained and organised will look for promotion and approval to the Air Ministry, and is not in full communion with the fleet. It has not got that which the fleet desires and which is necessary to true comradeship. For the winning of victories you want to get the most perfect team work on the fleet, and if you have another Navy in which the Air Force does belong to the Navy and looks for promotion to that Navy, that fleet will have a tremendous advantage on the day of battle. When hon. Members say that this proposal will wreck the Air Force may I point out that it is a very small proposal. The Navy at this moment is retaining 1,140 officers and men to take over the naval air craft, after they have been trained, in the event of the decision of the Cabinet going in their favour. But suppose that they amount to five per cent. of the Air Force. Five per cent. of 33,000 is only 1,650, and no one can pretend that the transfer of five per cent. of the Air Force is going to wreck the Air Force in any degree.
The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) last year spoke of the Air staff and said it was essential that they should have complete control so as to allow of concentration on one spot. As I listened to the Secretary of State for Air I heard him urge and reiterate that the great problem was one of air defence. So that is the spot we are to concentrate on. If, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he is extremely alarmed at the possibility of London being attacked and that the great problem is one of air defence it seems to me almost an echo of the old invasion scare of the past transferred to regions that Cæsar never knew. We know what can be done in the direction of invasion scares. It only wants some telling phrase such as Peel and Palmerston passed into the currency of
our thoughts when they invented that mischievous phrase, "Steam has bridged the Channel." We may hear some such phrase as "Airmen have bridged the sea." But what is there to show that there is any danger of invasion, as we understand invasion? The Secretary of State for Air referred to Mesopotamia, and said that in Mesopotamia they had transferred 300 men and two machine guns by aeroplanes. But if you multiply that five times or ten times it does not constitute an invasion. It constitutes something that can be taken care of by proper arrangements. It does constitute a raid, and a dangerous raid, when they bring bombs to bomb our workshops and break down the moral of our people, but it does not constitute an invasion such as the Navy takes care of, by which vast bodies of troops are transferred by sea. That danger does not arise.
I am very glad that we have not heard on this occasion anything about the capital ship. On previous occasions we were told that the capital ship was dead. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) went so far last year as to say that the American experiment showed that a battleship could be mined by a mine dropped from an aeroplane, though the mine missed the ship by 200 yards. If he calls the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) a reactionary, he was certainly a very progressive Member when he said that because I doubt very much whether the biggest mine that could be carried by an aeroplane would vitally injure a battleship at 15 yards. It is a matter of experiment how much it would endanger a battleship at 10 yards. At 200 yards it would not hurt a battleship in the least degree. If, instead of taking his records of the American experiments from the Hearst newspapers, he had read General Pershing's report—he was put there to eliminate the bias of profession—he would know that General Pershing's report practically summed up against the aeroplane. It said that very few bombs hit, and that the risk was practically negligible, had there been pursuit planes and the ship a moving target, and so forth. I have the report with me.
The hon. and gallant Member for Leith and several other speakers have made great play with the bias of
profession. I acknowledge that there is bias of profession, but I cannot recognise their picure when they represent the battleship as though it was an old aristocrat who was fighting for his existence in a world which no longer needed him or had any use for him. That is not the case with regard to the battleship. The war staffs of every country have pronounced in favour of the battleship. General Pershing's committee did so. The Prime Minister himself, when he was a Minister of the late Government, presided over a Cabinet Committee that went into this question of aircraft versus battleships, and that Committee pronounced absolutely in favour of the battleship. Therefore, it is not really bias which makes us say that the battleship is still a supreme element on the ocean. In fact, the aircraft carrier it-self would not be able to exist in face of an enemy fleet including battleships if it had not battleships to which it could retreat and which would defend it. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith went so far as to say that no Admiral would ever concede that some flying thing could do work better than some floating thing. Is that true? All the battleships operating at the end of the War carried an aeroplane which they were not designed to carry. The whole of naval thought at this moment is being engaged in this matter, because they wish to be able to experiment properly with these things, they wish to see how far the destroyer can be superseded by aeroplanes carrying torpedoes, and how far cruisers can be superseded by aeroplanes and dirigibles. If we can do these things, a very great economy will be made. That is what the Navy means when it talks about lifting the Navy into the Air.
I ask hon. Members to put out of their minds this idea of professional bias. I acknowledge that the Air people did not receive proper treatment at the beginning of and during the War. The reason is obvious. The Navy had no proper thinking staff, no War Staff. Therefore, it was a matter of prejudice to a large extent. The whole business of a War Staff is to think ahead, to look into the future, to get rid of bias, Constantly to challenge its own opinions; and it is for that reason that the War Staff working on these problems is most anxious to accelerate the day when aeroplanes and
dirigibles can supersede floating craft. We had hoped by this time that the Government would have reached a decision. I do not mean this Government, but the late Government, because when we had a Debate on these lines last year, the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) promised us a Committee of inquiry. The Committee was re-promised to us by Mr. Winston Churchill five days later. The first promise was on 16th March and the second promise on 21st March. Mr. Churchill expressly asked us not to prejudice the discussion of the Committee by coming to any conclusions in this House before the Committee reported.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham attributed to the Admiralty a great propaganda campaign. If there were such a campaign in existence the first people whom the Admiralty would inform that the Committee had never sat would be the naval Members of this House. But we remained in entire ignorance from March of last year to March of this year that that Committee was not sitting. As a matter of fact the Committee never sat, and it never took any evidence, and I know now that repeated protests were made from naval quarters against the fact that the Committee had never sat. I return to the point which I made at the beginning: We must not be fobbed off by so-called Sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence, if they are meant simply as delays. There has been a great breach of faith, not only in regard to naval Members of this House, but in regard to the whole of the Members of this House, in having promised that Committee and the Committee then not having sat and taken evidence. I protest against such a state of affairs.

Mr. NICHOL: I wish to deal with one or two points on the general policy of the Air Ministry and the general defence policy of the Government. An hon. Member opposite gave us a short history of the evolution of weapons, starting from the bare fist until we have aeroplanes with a range for bomb-dropping of 500 or 600 miles. It appears to me, however, that while there is a certain amount of evolution so far as the material side of fighting is concerned, there is no change in the moral side of it, and no change in the atmosphere. I can recollect reading
histories that gave an inkling of debates in the Roman Senate and in the Carthaginian Council Chambers, the equivalents of our House of Commons, and there we had the same fundamental argument that is carried on in this House to-day—the argument that there was no possibility of the existence of either of those nations in the world unless they had greater armaments and greater forces than their rivals. The pre-War atmosphere in this House is reproduced exactly to-day. We had at that time the question of rivalry in naval affairs between Great Britain and Germany. And we had the demand, "We want eight, and we won't wait," from the deep-water school. They got their eight from the Liberal Government of the day. Here we are, certainly with a material change, for we are discussing, not the question of the battleship, but the old policy with a new weapon of slightly different range. The pre-War discussions were smothered over with the idea and the continued reiteration of the phrase that we were not preparing to fight anyone, and that Germany was not the enemy. Look back over the pre-War Debates on defence. Every second speaker who got up maintained that he had absolutely friendly intentions to every nation in Europe. But they were piling up armaments all the same. Here we are to-day, a few short years after the greatest War in history, in the same smothered and ineffective way, discussing the question of piling up more armaments.
Cant apart, I think it is a commonplace to say that in a discussion of the Air Force in this House the one idea that is behind the minds of every Member is the very great disparity between the Air Force of this country and that of our late Ally. There has been a change caused by the War. Germany has been displaced as the bogey. A very ineffective bogey it was before the War, but like most bogeys it gains a very great reality if we are never to speak about it honestly and we are all going to carry on until it does become something, not only a reality, but an obsession in all our minds. There is that change, a change with our late Ally. I say late Ally advisedly, because there is war in Europe now, and that war is against the wishes of all sections in this House. I suggest that, perhaps, if the interests in this country— there were interests behind the late War—decide that
France is not going to get ahead in Europe in the air, some of the aeroplanes may be conveniently sold to Germany to arm it for fighting the French. A hundred years ago we subsidised the Russians to fight Napoleon. The quick change artist is more evident on the stage just now than at any other time in our history. I want to question the fundamental idea on which this discussion has been continued— the idea that countries must go on, that we must develop another race for armament, not a race in capital ships and cruisers, but this time a race in aeroplanes, although the last speaker, it seems, still pins his faith to the idea that capital ships count.
Even at this stage in the development of invention we have an opportunity of doing something for world peace. We have been very good at losing opportunities in the past. Probably the greatest opportunity ever put in front of the. Governments of the world was the opportunity which came after the Armistice in 1918, but we must all recognise that the opportunity was then wasted. It was wasted, in my opinion, not so much because of any evil in one man's mind or in one country's mind or in one Government's mind, when they were represented at the Versailles Conference. That great opportunity was thrown to the winds mainly because of the thousands who gathered in Paris, both the men who carried on the inner negotiations and those on the outer ring — each individual was obsessed with the fundamental idea that the only way to progress for his own nation lay in having more force and a stronger strategic position than his next-door neighbours. I desire to maintain the thesis that if we are going to have a race in armaments there is no use in discussing housing subsidies or house building schemes. If we are going to have a race in armaments which are designed for bombing raids, we ought to be discussing the question of constructing rabbit holes and dug-outs for the population. Let us get down underneath the ground, whether it is to be 200 yards down or only l0½ yards down—but let us discuss the technical problem of where we are to live when threatened by such armaments. I am going to put against the policy of armaments, the proposition that if we are going to differentiate this moment in history from the history of the last
2,000 years, what is required is for some nation in a strong position and with big armaments, to decide for its own part that it is not going to have those armaments any longer. It does not matter if a small fourth-rate country does so. It does not matter if Switzerland decides not to have an overwhelming air force, nor does it matter particularly whether or not Belgium decides on that course, but it would matter very materially if one of the great first-class Powers, as we call them, one of the great nations as far as financial and commercial power is concerned, were to pin its faith, not to force, but to the policy of living at peace with its neighbours.
What are we going to lose by such a policy? We are going to lose our defence. We are going to live in a much more dangerous position. I am not advocating, from any cowardly point of view, that our nation should go in for disarmament. I think it would be a dangerous experiment, but I feel that we have got to live dangerously in the future—much more dangerously than we did in the past— and the only alternative is that we are going to use all our substance in war preparations and in the ambulance work which comes after war. A question recently asked in this House by the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) elicited the fact that in killed and wounded the British Empire alone lost about 3,000,000 men during the four years of the War, and in treasure—a much less thing, but involving, nevertheless, a burden that is weighing down the nation—we can actually record a loss of £10,000,000,000 or £12,000,000,000. When one takes into consideration all the extra cost thrown on to the nation as an indirect consequence of the War, the amount is much greater. When we wish to borrow money for anything now, the rate of interest is double what it was formerly as a result of the War. If we wish to carry out any scheme, the cost is greatly increased in consequence of the War, and in all probability, adding in the cost to the Dominions and to India, the late War cost the British Empire a total sum not far short of £30,000,000,000. Why, it will only need another two wars like that and, as a matter of simple arithmetical computation, we shall find ourselves doing nothing else in Great Britain but prepar-
ing for the next holocaust and bandaging up our wounds from the last. We will have no other preoccupation in life. In my belief, life should be something better than a constant preparation for fighting. Therefore, I bring forward the view that we ought to set out and show an example in disarmament. Reference has been made to the disarmament of Germany. That was forced upon her and, in my opinion, was in direct contradiction of the terms of the Armistice, under which, in good faith, she laid down her arms. I am not going into that question at all, further than to say that, as an object lesson to the world, the forcible disarmament of a country and then the treacherous over-running of that country, in order to force her to carry out terms which everybody in their senses knew to be—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is introducing a subject which is quite alien to the Vote that we are now discussing.

Mr. NICHOL: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to point out that the forcible disarmament of a country is no object lesson for the world and represents no moral advance. On the other hand, if a nation such as ours decided on moral grounds to take this dangerous course—and I admit it is a dangerous course—if it were to say, specifically, that it was going to run the risk of having no armaments at all, then I believe that would be the beginning of a new era in the history of the human race. I think it is appropriate that this subject should be raised in a Debate on the Air Estimates, because in the Air Estimates we see the beginning of a new race in armaments. We are beginning afresh; we are beginning in the air, in exactly the same way as we began the other competition in armaments which brought about disaster. We did not gain from the war anything either from the moral, commercial, financial or social points of view. We are beginning another such race as led up to that War, and no matter who wins this race in the air the world will be poorer, and the world be an even worse place for the great mass of the people to live in than it is to-day. That is the reason why I bring this matter forward at this stage. We have had suggestions put forward to-day as to possible future developments. There was a suggestion of some curious amphibious machine
which could dive into the sea, carry torpedoes into the air and drop back into the sea again and could fire off torpedoes in any position. I am not sure, but that it was to be capable of existence in three spheres—under the water, on the water and in the air. Things like that have been hinted at in this Debate.
Without going into any of these fantastic propositions, I suggest here that we, with our late Ally, should consider the situation as I have presented it. Let, us honestly face the fact that France is the only country which this race of armaments in the air can concern. Here we are, not yet out of the mess of the late War, contemplating the beginning of another rivalry on exactly the same lines as our rivalry with Germany. Speaking personally, I say what we ought to aim at is a demonstration to the world that we actually believe in the principle of disarmament. Reference has been made to incidents in Mesopotamia. I think it was in the same country angels appeared in the sky, as we are told, on a certain night about 2,000 years ago giving to the world a message which we all sing and all believe in for at any rate one or two hours on a certain morning of each year. The message was "Peace and goodwill to men." Two thousand years afterwards something else appears in the sky, a new sort of angel, but the only thing it can drop is a bomb upon some poor villagers —either on their flocks or, as was admitted in the last Debate, on the human beings themselves. That is the only thing that comes from the sky nowadays, and it comes as a present from this House and from the ratepayers of Great Britain.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has last spoken in the arguments addressed by him to the House on the subject of disarmament. There is no one in this House who wants to see a race in armaments, or who would not like to see war abolished altogether, and none are more averse to war than those most conversant with war and who know its horrors. I wish to say a few words on the question of the co-ordination of the three Services. Personally, I am glad to see the sense of the House veering round, if not towards the necessity for a Ministry of Defence, certainly towards the establishment of
some machinery for co-ordinating the work of the Services. If anything would make the House come to that conclusion it should be some of the partisan speeches to which we have listened during these Debates. In fact, I was rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) did not go so far as to demand that the Tank Corps should be incorporated in the Air Force. I have been pressing the question of co-ordination on the Government for the last three years because I believe it is the only way of securing efficiency and economy, but I have always been met with the same rebuff and the same remark, to which reference has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). We have always been told that the Committee of Imperial Defence is dealing with these matters. As a matter of fact, I know that the Committee of Imperial Defence only sat once during the first two years after the Armistice, and it is not a body suitable for co-ordinating the three Services.
Another argument against co-ordinating the Services has been put forward, that there are constant conversations between the Chiefs of the various Services. That is no good at all. In fact, it is worse than useless, because it is throwing dust in the eyes of everybody. It is obvious that those conversations cannot be of any use, and no machinery that is set up can be of any use unless it accepts combined responsibility. That is the crux of the whole matter. I sympathise entirely with the Secretary of State for Air and with the Chief of the Air Staff if they are trying to get everything they can at the expense of the Admiralty and the War Office. The responsibility for the air lies on them, just as it lies on the Admiralty in regard to the Navy. It is this question of responsibility which is of first-class importance, and if any machinery is set up, I hope the Committee that is setting up that machinery will bear this question of responsibility in mind.
In studying these Estimates, I do not feel at all happy as regards the Air Force. I think it is too meagre altogether, and that we run a very great risk with an Air Force of the size for which we are estimating to-day; but at the same time, I think-that for £120,000,000 or more to be expended on defence altogether is probably an excessively large sum. I do not know
whether anybody in this House is satisfied that the allocation of the funds— £58,000,000 to the Navy, £52,000,000 to the Army, and £15,000,000 to the Air Force—is correct. I do not believe that it is, and I do not believe that we are getting the best out of the money by not having these matters co-ordinated. If one looks through the Debates during the past four years on the subject of co-ordination, one sees a remarkable thing, to which I drew the attention of the House a year ago. Every single Minister connected with any Department, the Admiralty, the Air Ministry, or the War Office, when speaking on this subject, agreed as to the necessity for having some machinery, but nothing has been done, and, to my mind, we have lost very considerably during the past three years, not only in money, but in efficiency, by not having it.
If not a Ministry of Defence, certainly some machinery of co-ordination was forecast by the Esher Committee which established a General Staff a good many years ago. It is the logical sequence, and it is bound to come, in my way of thinking, in the long run, but I do not advocate necessarily a Ministry of Defence at once. I think it has got to come by stages, and the first stage is to have the Committee which the Prime Minister told us is going to be set up to decide what should be the first stage towards getting a Ministry of Defence, but I feel more convinced than ever—and I have felt convinced ever since the War—that we shall get neither economy nor efficiency until we get the three Services properly co-ordinated and working in close co-operation with each other.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Many hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol) in what he said about disarmament, but the state of Europe is not fit for general disarmament now. We are now debating the Air Estimates, and I wish to congratulate the Air Minister on the able way in which he has put the Estimates forward this year, and also the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) on his very able maiden speech. Last year many Members of the air industry came to me and said the air industry was in a bad way, and what could they do? The Parliamentary Air Committee met, and we saw the Prime Minister, and got £2,000,000 more for the
Air. I think this year the Air Estimates are far too low. We want a better division of the money provided for our fighting forces than we get now. It is not right that the Navy should take all the money and the Air Service get so little. I begged the late Prime Minister, who was in the House just now—I am sorry he has withdrawn—to stop building these two battleships and give the money to the Air. I wrote to him, and I asked him verbally to do so, but he decided against the airmen, and gave £10,000,000 for those two battleships. Those battleships are perfectly useless, and all airmen know it. Many old naval officers admit it, amongst whom is that very able officer, Sir Percy Scott, who has written frequently to the "Times" to point out how useless battleships are. I will give the opinion of Admiral Sims, and I know the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) would like to hear this. Speaking in the United States a short time ago, Admiral Sims said:
It has been said in the past that the battleship was the backbone of the Fleet, but I believe it is so no more. A battleship has no defence against an aeroplane but small anti-aircraft guns. On the Western front, one hit in 1,000 was considered a good average, with massed batteries firing at a plane, with plenty of observations to determine the range. The best experts now agree that the results of anti-aircraft firing from a ship are negligible.
The Admiral went on to say:
In my judgment, it matters little whether the big ships now in the world navies are scrapped or left as they are, because in any case they will be of no further use. 
Further towards the end of his address, the Admiral was asked by one of his auditors, "Will the battleship become obsolete against an aeroplane?" to which he unhesitatingly replied "Yes." That is the opinion of Admiral Sims, one of the greatest Admirals of our day.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Was that accepted by the American Naval Staff?

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Admiral Sims was the President of the War College of the United States, and his opinion is of great value among all thinking men. I would like to see the large amount of money provided for these battleships and the money provided in giving them large crews, keeping them in commission, and so on, given to the Air Ministry because it is not right that our Air Force should be so much below that of France. At any
moment there may be frictions in Europe, and who can tell what will happen? This town of ours, London, cannot be protected in any way by the Navy or the Army. You have got to rely on a very efficient Air Force, and therefore I would like to see the Air Minister's Estimates extended by another £10,000,000. We want an Air Force just as efficient as the old Expeditionary Force. We want a very strong Reserve, and I submit that the Air Minister is not taking enough money for his reserves. We also want a very efficient civil aviation, because civil aviation should bear the same relationship to the Air Force as the mercantile marine in the past has done to the Navy. I submit to the Air Minister that he must help civil aviation all he possibly can, and I think he puts too low a value on civil aviation, because the other day, when introducing his Estimates, he referred to the machines not being efficient. That has little to do with it, because it is the whole ground organisation, the engineers, the drawing office staff, the workshops, the pilots, the riggers, and so on that are so valuable in time of war, as we found when the late War started. Therefore, I submit that he ought to encourage civil aviation all he possibly can.
There is one criticism I should like to make in regard to what I will call the £2,000,000 scheme. I am afraid that it is giving too much of a monopoly, and we do not like monopolies. We had a monopoly in the early days of the submarines in the Navy, and it rather restricted their development. I should like to know from the Air Minister what he proposes to do with these pioneers of the air industry who have been carrying out all this pioneer work in establishing the airways. Only lately the Daimler Company, I understand, started an airway between London and Birmingham, which is running most successfully, and I would like to know whether, under the new scheme, all these pioneer firms are to be crowded out, or are they to have a ring? I do not like the idea of a ring in the air industry, because competition is so valuable.
I should like to say a word, as an old pioneer of the Naval Air Service, and I might tell some hon. Members that I started the Naval Air Service in 1909 with one officer and one man, and my opinion may be of some use to the House. The Noble Lord the Member for South
Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone have put before the House that the Navy should have its Air Service again. In the Naval Air Department we tried to give the Admiralty the best air weapons we could, and what use did they make of them? I will take the torpedo machine, which is the machine that drops the locomotive torpedo. Just before the War we carried out very successful experiments with that machine, and when the War broke out we sent a flight of these torpedo machines to the Dardanelles and told the pilots to destroy any enemy ships they could. They fired three shots and got three hits. You would think the Admiralty would have developed this machine after that, but not a bit of it. When I asked them to build 200 torpedo machines, seven months before Jutland, it was turned down. If we had only had torpedo machines at the Battle of Jutland we would have got a good many of the enemy ships the morning after Jutland. We also ought to have had Zeppelins at that battle. Why did we not have them? The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) the other day quoted from Mr. Churchill's book, where he says that £40,000,000 of the taxpayers' money was wasted in building Zeppelins, because they were never any use in the War. That is right, but why were they not of use in the War? Mr. Churchill, in his own book, says that he went against building these Zeppelins, and that is the reason we did not have them at Jutland, because Mr. Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, turned them down, and they were developed too late to be of any use. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith says he does not value the Zeppelin very much, but if anybody saw the wonderful network of wireless intercepted signal charts we had at the Admiralty, showing how the whole of the North Sea was observed by the Zeppelins, I think they would appreciate their value. We ought to have had Zeppelins and torpedo machines at the Battle of Jutland, but we were prevented by the short-sightedness of the Admiralty, and my gallant comrades in the North Sea were deprived of their fruits of victory because we did not have proper aerial reconnaissance.
7.0.p.M.
The Sea Lords of the Admiralty, all the time we were developing the Naval Air Service, were blocking us. Every-
thing we produced, they blocked. Take administration. The naval airmen asked for a good sound Air policy, and we eventually got the Derby Air Board set up, under Lord Derby. They had nine meetings and they all resigned. Then Lord Curzon's Board was set up, and I ask the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea and the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone to read Lord Curzon's Report on how the Admiralty blocked the administration of their Naval Air Service. It is a secret Report, and I cannot quote from it, but I ask those hon. Members to read that Report before coming down to the House and asking that the Navy should have back its Naval Air Service. What is the remedy for this The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said it was a hardy annual, this friction between the Navy and the Air people. It is so. What is the remedy? The remedy is to set up a Defence Ministry, such as was provided for in the Bill I presented to this House last year. The question of a Ministry of Defence is not a party one. I had supporters from all sides of the House. The Chief Labour Whip, the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) supported that Bill, and I had Liberal support, Independent support, and the support of several Conservative Members. The only solution for this friction between the Navy and the Air people is to set up a Ministry of Defence without delay; to have a Minister in charge, with an Under-Minister in direct charge of the Admiralty Office, the Army Office, and the Air Office. If you do that you will save the country millions of money which is being spent on the duplication now. Instead of having three systems of recruiting, Medical Services, Armaments, etc., you would have one, and instead of three systems of indenting stores, you would have one, if such a Ministry were set up. I feel perfectly certain you would not have any Minister of Defence depriving the Fleet of its eyes. The late First Lord, Mr. Churchill, said, "I much prefer aeroplanes to Zeppelins, because it is so like riding on a broom stick when on an aeroplane." That was the reason we did not have Zeppelins at the Battle of Jutland. I should like to paraphrase the Noble Lord the Member
for South Battersea, who read from a paper the other day some extracts headed "Hands off the Air Service." I say to the House, "Hands off the Royal Air Force by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty."

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who opened the Debate this afternoon, made one of the most attractive maiden speeches which I have ever heard in this House. There was one sentence, in particular, with which I found myself in complete agreement. He said that the path of the Air Minister through the Committee of Imperial Defence was strewn with very long and difficult controversies. I can assure him that he is absolutely right, and it is not only within the walls of the Committee of Imperial Defence that those controversies exist. I think he will admit that even this afternoon we have had several examples of some of those heated controversies pressed upon our attention—questions for which there is a great deal to be said on both sides. Take, for instance, the most important question that was raised during the course of the Debate to-day and during the Debate last week, the simple direct question of what our air standard ought to be. This afternoon we have had a variety of opinions expressed, with a view to giving an answer to that question. First of all, there was the cautious answer of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness who said we ought not, in a moment of panic, to be driven into any wild scheme of expansion, when there was no possibility in the immediate future of the danger of war. Then there was the opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that on no account ought we to find ourselves in the position of having the capital of the Empire defencelcss against hostile air attack.
There was a third opinion, expressed in two very interesting speeches from the Labour benches, that we ought not—so far as I understood the argument of the two hon. Members—to have an Air Force at all; that we ought to show an example, in depriving ourselves of the defence of the air arm, to the rest of the world with a view to bringing about general disarmament. With reference to that last opinion, I think the two hon. Members were really over-stating their case. They seemed to
assume that we, on these benches, were opposed to disarmament. Nothing of the kind, of course, is true. We are as anxious as any hon. Member in any part of the House to see less money spent upon fighting expenditure over the whole of the world. We may claim that we have shown that is our view by the attitude we took at the Washington Conference. I can assure the two hon. Members that nobody would regret more than myself seeing the Government and this House embark upon a new race in the old race of armaments. It is on that account that I ventured, a week ago, to put the whole facts before the House, with a view to hon. Members in all parts of it helping me to come to a reasonable answer as to what our air standard should be and how we can avoid, as we all wish to avoid, being driven into a competitive air programme against any of the other Great Powers.
I agree with a great deal the hon. Member for Eastern Renfrew (Mr. Nichol) said about the horrors of the warfare of the future. I say, quite frankly, I should like in every way possible to avoid it. I agree, in that connection, with what the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness said, when he reminded the House of the efforts that are being made to avoid— if it be possible to avoid—by means of some general guarantee a return to the old and vicious race of armaments in the past. The difficulty, it seems to me, with these guarantees, is really a practical one, for a guarantee that does not mean a promise of some definite force in the way of intervention is of little worth. It really is a practical question for the General Staffs of the three Services to consider, and for the Governments of the Great Powers to consider, as to what kind of commitments it is possible to enter into in the nature of a guarantee of that kind. Speaking generally, I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member said. I should very much like to see some general arrangement come to, under which any chance of this old race of armaments could be done away with in future. That was the first question raised in the course of the Debate to-day. Another question, which has often been raised in the course of our Debates, was as to what ought to be the proper line of air development in this country. Should it be the line that is adopted by certain of the Great Powers, under which air development is almost
entirely undertaken by the two old fighting Services, the Army and the Navy? Or should it be a development on the line upon which we have gone since 1918, that of an independent Air Force?
The House will not expect me to enter at length into that argument. I should have hoped that the lessons of the War, and the events of the last four years, would have proved that our line, judged by results, has on the whole been very successful. Several hon. and gallant Members, during the course of the afternoon, have urged arguments to show that the line of development we have adopted has led to a considerable amount of friction between the fighting Services. I am afraid that as long as the world goes on there always will be a certain amount of friction between all great Departments of State. In this particular controversy, I am inclined to think that the extent of the friction has been very much exaggerated, and that any impartial Member, who inquired into the question at the present time, would find that the friction, in actual practice, did not amount to very much. Anyhow, I do not want to be led into a general Debate that might appear to raise controversial issues with the hon. and gallant Members who have put the Admiralty case. I am glad to say that an impartial inquiry by a Sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence is going to consider that part of the problem, and will, I hope, settle it once for all. There are one or two statements of fact, however, that do not enter into the controversy, to which I must allude in passing. There was the statement, for instance, of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who said that we are spending much too much money in overhead and non-flying charges. He quoted, in particular, the amount of money we are spending in bricks and mortar. I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the opposite of what he said is really the case. The Air Force at the end of the War, as I told the House a week ago, had no permanent building of any kind, and the result has been that, even to keep the rooms waterproof over the heads of the air officers, we had to recondition these buildings, and we had, in certain cases, to build permanent buildings to replace the old war-time huts; but, so far from having been extravagant, I should be inclined to say that we have
spent too little money rather than too much. One particular case he did quote. He quoted the case of the Air Force Staff College that we have recently opened at Andover. That case exactly illustrates what I am attempting to say to the House. In the case of the Staff College, we contented ourselves with war-time huts. We did not build a permanent building of any kind at all, and that is the reason why the Staff College at Andover does not appear as a separate item in our Votes this evening, as we made use of war-time huts, and have spent no money at all upon a permanent building. The hon. and gallant Member also quoted the ease of the permanent buildings that we have undertaken at Halton. Halton is to be the principal centre for the training of boys for the Air Force. It is to contain about 2,000 boys. If the hon. and gallant Member will make a calculation of the amount we are to spend in fitting it up for the 2,000 boys who are to be educated at Halton, I think he will find it compares extraordinarily favourably, shall I say, with the building of schools, or of colleges, or of any other comparable institution of this kind under any Department of State or any great municipal authority.
A further point was raised as to whether we supply the Admiralty with the aircraft that they require, and whether the arrangements as regards personnel are satisfactory or not. There I must decline to get into the controversy, and 1 must leave that to the inquiry of the Committee of Imperial Defence. But there was one other phase of the subject to which several hon. Members have alluded. One or two hon. Members, particularly the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), who is probably as well entitled to speak upon air questions as any. Member in the House, implied that they did not think I had fully appreciated the potentialities of civil aviation, and that I ought to be doing more for it. I will tell the House that I am second to no Member in the view that I take as to the potential value of civil aviation in the future, and I hope, during the next 12 months, whether it be by some such scheme as the Hambling Committee scheme, or some other scheme, to put civil aviation in the way of developing itself better than it has been during the last four years, and if any hon. Member can make any sug-
gestion to me as to how further I can assist civil aviation, I hope he will give me the benefit of his advice, for I can assure him that I am most anxious really to put civil aviation on to a road in which it can develop, and can in the future provide a really valuable asset to our air-power altogether. Therefore, do not let any hon. Member think, because I have not included any large additional sum of money in these Estimates for civil aviation, that I do not wish to develop it, or that I regard the question of civil aviation as in any way one of secondary importance.
Several hon. Members have asked what should be the relations between the three fighting Services upon air questions. Hon. Members can argue that question almost indefinitely from the point of view of any one of the three great fighting Departments, and that really is the trouble, and that really is the case— a case in which I am in full sympathy—for some co-ordinating machinery in which we shall find an answer to a question which is otherwise unanswerable. I can assure all the hon. Members who have alluded to this subject that I do look for an answer from this National Defence Committee. Let me reassure hon. Members who seemed to think that this question was again going to be shelved. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert.) pressed upon the House the urgent need for this Committee starting work at once. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that while I am not entitled to give him the names of the members of the Committee, for that is not usual with a Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, I can tell him that this Committee has actually started work, that it sat yesterday, and that it is sitting both to-morrow and the next day. That, I know, will be reassuring to the effect that the question is not going to be shelved, and that we hope for definite recommendations from the Committee, both upon the general question of co-ordinating national defence, in the first place, and upon the narrow issue of the controversy between the Admiralty and the Air Force in—I must not tie myself down to days, or weeks, or months —but in a comparatively short time.
I think that I have dealt, as far as I can, with the more general questions that have been asked me during the Debate.
But there are one or two specific questions that have been put to me, to which I ought to refer before I sit down. For instance, there was the question—and a very important one—put to me by the right hon. Member for South Molton with reference to the Hinaidi Camp at Bagdad. I would like to give the House the facts of this case, and to let hon. Members judge whether or not I am right in the course that I am taking. Two years ago it was decided that this camp, which is a few miles from Bagdad, should be the principal camp of the British garrison in Iraq. Work was started upon it, and the War Office, which was then in control of the military forces in Iraq, spent nearly £300,000 upon it. It was subsequently decided, as a result of the Cairo Conference, that Iraq should become an air command, and that the principal military force should be eight Air Force squadrons. In view of that, it became necessary to make alterations in the Hinaidi buildings, with a view to making it a proper centre for the greater part of the eight Air Force squadrons. When I had to consider these Estimates, I found that of the more important parts of the Hinaidi work, between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the work had already been completed. I can give the right hon. Gentleman figures in a moment, if he likes. I found that the work that was still necessary was just the work without which these buildings and this expenditure would be virtually useless. I found, for instance, that the barracks had been built, but the flooring of the barracks had not been completed. I found, for instance, that while it was absolutely necessary for the health of the garrison to have electric fans and a hospital, neither the electric fans nor the hospital had been completed. The result of my inquiries, therefore, was generally to show that, unless one spent something like the money that I have in the Estimates for this year, the expenditure of £700,000 or £800,000, already spent and already agreed to by this House, would have been rendered completely useless. Moreover, the garrison in Iraq would have been left in an almost impossible position. You could not expect them to go on living month after month, year after year, under canvas, and the whole object of these buildings was to give them barracks in which it was fit for them to live. I have scrutinised the items of this
expenditure with the greatest care of which I was capable. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have used and are using every possible economy. The buildings, as I say, are to be the centre for the Air Force squadrons. He suggested that we were going to build barracks for the Air Force all over the country. That is not the case. This is to be the one great centre.
Let me further reassure him, if he is anxious as to whether or not we are going to stay in the country for ever, that the buildings are not permanent; they are only of a temporary nature, and if one compares them with the corresponding buildings that we might put up in this country, they are far cheaper. I hope the House will see, in view of these facts, that it was really necessary to complete the work, 90 per cent. of which had already been done. I can further reassure my right hon. Friend as to certain parts of the work that have not yet been begun. They are not included in this year's Estimate at all. I am looking into those items of expenditure. I am in communication with Air-Marshal Salmond on the subject, and I am seeing whether they cannot be cut out altogether. 1 am impressing upon the authorities in Iraq that we desire to embark upon no expenditure whatever that is not absolutely necessary for the health of our troops. I hope I have said enough in this connection, not, indeed, to reconcile the right hon. Gentleman with our remaining in Iraq— I could never do that, and it would not. be in order for me to try—but, at any rate, to show that we are only completing work already almost completed, and we intend to get out of any expenditure, particularly new expenditure, that might be found on further consideration not to be necessary. There was one further question the right hon. Gentleman asked me in connection with the health of the troops.

Mr. LAMBERT: In Mosul.

Sir S. HOARE: In Mosul. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a letter that I myself had not seen, and that is the first I have heard about the suggestion I am quite ready to make inquiries.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen it in the public Press?

Sir S. HOARE: Neither there nor have I come across it in my office. My information is that the health of the troops is excellent, but I shall certainly look into the matter. So far, however, as I know, the complaint is an isolated one. I do not think there is any foundation for it. I hope, now I have dealt with the various questions that have been presented to me, that hon. Members might now allow me to have the first of these Votes, and, should it then be necessary, to continue the more detailed consideration of the various items on the other Votes when we come to them.

Rear-Admiral Sir GUY GAUNT: I should like to have a chance of dealing with one or two matters which have come under discussion, and about which I do not entirely agree with hon. Friends who have spoken. With some of what has been said of the Admiralty I am in agreement, for it was so in my time, but I have forgiven them so far as I am concerned. We were all young and wayward in our youth—so was the Admiralty—and have made blunders, and very bad ones sometimes. The Admiralty had a very able officer to run the thing if he had been allowed. They let him, more or less, down. I am quite sure that that accident will not occur again. I refer to the Battle of Jutland. There are one or two points brought forward with which I should like to deal. One was that of aeroplanes on board ships. What about the protection of our trade routes in this matter? We have got food supplies coming home from South America, and how on earth are you going to get the ships through unless you have something to protect them? You can call your ships home by wireless, and if it is very thick weather they will not be seen by the enemy aeroplanes, but the matter of keeping your ships together is a most serious one. I do not think I am very far wrong when I say that my old friend goes on the principle that when thieves fall out honest men come into their own, and that when sailors fall out the landsman gets some of what is his own and discovers what is the proper course to follow. I do urge very strongly that the Admiralty should have responsibility for the control of their own men in the Air Service. I do not want the material at all, because I think it is very much better that somebody else should have charge of that
material. I think the soldiers and sailors in this House will agree that as regards the Air Service they are all thieves. I have been one of them, and I know how this Service is served. When men ask for 100 per cent. they hope they will get 80 per cent., and are very glad when they get 30 per cent. of their requirements. You must have the men trained by those who will have to use them in war.
I could give two cases in point. Take, for example, the late War in the North Sea. A very distinguished Admiral told me the other day that he was steaming north with several battleships when he was hailed by a man above from the Royal Air Force who asked him if he was the Curacoa, a lighter vessel. I put it to hon. Members that it is the same as if some hon. Member went out of this House and hailed a K 'bus and asked him if he was a wheelbarrow. One can imagine that what the Admiral said inside would be similar to what the 'bus driver said outside. It is most important that the men we use in the War and in critical times should be the men to whom we have been used to giving orders. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) the other day drew a doleful picture of the Navy running their own airmen in their spare time. I put it to hon. Members that that hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been on board a modern battleship recently because the one thing they have not got is spare time. I leave that for a moment, but I have a horrible fear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have strayed aboard one of the aeroplane carriers of the Navy and saw one or two spare men who were under the command of the Royal Air Force. You must have the captain of the ship must be in supreme command. Nobody, I think, will question that. We all want economy and here you are duplicating everything. The same hon. and gallant Gentleman drew pictures of the Royal Air Force, how men were going into it, and what they were going to be, and what a magnificent force it was going to develop into. I agree to a large extent, but I think flying men would agree that the actual flying age, that is the years in which the man is fit to fly, will probably be from eight to 10 as a general rule. I am rather sceptical on this point. As I do not know I will not pursue it except to say I believe that is so. That means that you will have men in the Royal Air Force
flying between 20 and 30 and then after that you will have a tremendous number of men on their feet. Your regiments will be chock full of sergeants. We shall have some wonderful developments.
Under my scheme the youngster goes into the Navy in the ordinary way and as he comes to 19 or 20 he is specially selected because he is the best man for the Air Service. You put him into the Air Service, certainly, when the actual flying time comes, and subsequently, when it is finished, you bring him back again aboard ship. He will thus have acquired a good knowledge of the flying service and of the Navy. The sailor is a queer animal. You have got to catch him young and then you will get the thing into his system which he will get nowhere else. I hate to speak about myself, but one of my family went into the cavalry and I into the Navy. We never met for many years. Then he was a major in the cavalry and I was a Commander in the Navy, and we disagreed on every blessed topic that we discussed—or perhaps, I should say we saw things differently—[Laughter.]—I am not speaking now to make laughter, but to show that it is absolutely necessary that these fellows should get the atmosphere into their system. Suppose an Admiral sent to the Air Force for a dozen men to do a piece of work. No doubt he would get a dozen apparently very capable men, but what they might do was seen by a case that happened when we were after the Goeben when she was at Constantinople early in the War. The senior naval officer decided to investigate, and he sent over a very gallant airman to make a reconnaissance, but when he came back he could not tell the Admiral what he wanted to know, and what a sailor would have been able to perceive at once. If you train a man in the Navy in the way I suggested you will get a 100 per cent. man. It is just the same if you sent me to inquire into an Army matter, and ask me something about the cavalry. I would not be able to say whether it was the 10th Hussars or the Royal Army Service Corps. I put it to hon. Members it is the right thing that the Admiralty should have sole responsibility and control of these men, and I for one hope that that matter will be considered. I may be accused of propaganda, but I think anyone in close touch with the men who are at sea will support everything I have said to-night.

Captain BENN: I should first of all like to congratulate very heartily the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down upon his speech. If he were not a distinguished officer in the senior Service, I should say it was a "breezy speech." It was an admirable speech from his point of view, and from the point of view of the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass). I want to deal with those two speeches. We are engaged to-day in what is called strengthening the hands of the Air Ministry. The Air Minister is subject, there is no doubt, to be attacked suddenly, and particularly by the naval interest, and it is the duty of this House and those who believe in unity and the value of a unified Air Service to make that point of view quite clear and to answer the arguments, especially of the soldiers and the sailors on that point. It has also to be remembered that the Secretary of State for Air suffers under a great disadvantage, which I am quite sure this House never intended he should labour under, in that he is not a member of the Cabinet.
Dealing with the great financial burdens of armaments, the hon. Member for South Molton said that the solution was to be found in taking duties away from the older Services as soon as those duties were able to be more efficiently performed by the newer Services. We who believe in the Air Service say definitely that there are certain duties which should be taken away from the Army and Navy and handed over to the Air Service. If the best form of defence is counter-attack, that is obviously the right way to go to work. I think myself—I do not know whether experts will support me—that all anti-aircraft defence should be handed over to the Air Force. After all, the anti-aircraft gun is only one part of anti-aircraft defence. The only anti-aircraft defence is aeroplanes. That is the major part. The gun is an incident, and the signal is an incident. Anyone who has spent any time in an aeroplane knows how extremely uncomfortable it is to be out of liaison with the man who is firing the gun. He may be firing at you instead of at the person he is intending to attack. The closest liaison is desirable, especially from the point of view of the observer or the pilot in the machine.
Further than that, I say that camouflage should be taken away from whoever does it and given to the Air Ministry. Camouflage is an attempt to deceive the airman. That is its aim. There may be certain forms of camouflage which are intended to deceive the ground observer, but, in the main, camouflage is an attempt to deceive the airman and the aerial photographer. The only person, therefore, who can know whether camouflage is effective or not is the man who is an airman, or, more particularly, the man who is an expert in aerial photography. Not only is there the negative side—the concealing side—but there is the positive side to camouflage; that is to say, making things look what they are not. I think that side of the matter would be much better developed by the Air Ministry than by any ground force.
So much do we hear of counter attacks by the other Services, who are always making the life of the Air Ministry so hard, that I would like to say a word about disarmament. I agree most cordially with the hon. Member who spoke about the necessity for disarmament. The difficulty about disarmament is this. It is very difficult to lay down a scale of military Air Force without hindering the development of civilian aviation, because you cannot say exactly where the line between a military and a civilian machine is to be drawn. That was the difficulty at the Washington Conference. That was the difficulty in drawing up the German Treaty. It was impossible to say how far we could permit the Germans to have a civilian Air Force without giving them the power to build up a military Air Force. If you say, "We will agree that no Power shall have more than a certain strength in Air Force because we wish to disarm," you may at the same time be aiming a crippling blow to civilian aviation, and definitely retarding a great, progressive civilising and pacific force.
I now come to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Sir Guy Gaunt). The candour with which he speaks very materially assists those who wish to oppose him. He refers to aeroplanes as stores. He says "Indent for stores"—it may be for dungarees, or paint, or an aeroplane. They are stores, he says, and he wants to have nothing whatever to do with them. What chance
would there be for a great scientific force like the Air Force to develop under conditions of that kind? The thing is impossible. In speaking as he did, the hon. and gallant Member gave a typically Admiralty view of aeroplanes; they are just stores, and nothing else.
The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) thought there should be a dividing up, and that the Admiralty should be given the control over their machines because they are of a different type of machine from the type of machine required by what I might call the land Air Force. But are they different in any respect? Are the engines different? Does not the hon. and gallant Member know that all the problems of material which apply to one class of aeroplane apply to all classes of aeroplane? You cannot say that the aeroplane which the Navy is going to use should be handled by the Navy, and, as I understand, constructed by the Navy because they know the type they require. If you were to adopt any such system you would go back at once to the old days of competition, and you would amputate from the general body of thought the whole of the Naval Air Force, greatly to the detriment of that Service; whereas that force should be in touch with every advance, every little change and improvement, and all the great triumphs which are to be hoped for from the Research Department of the Air Ministry.

Sir G. GAUNT: Under your scheme, who is looking after dungarees, and all the rest of it, now?

Captain BENN: I do not care very much. I do not know. Coming to the question of personnel, the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) gave some very interesting illustrations. He took the careers of one or two of the most brilliant pilots of the War, and pointed out that they had achieved their marvellous exploits after a very short period of training. That is quite true: but I cannot think it is true to say that the real flying man, the man who is eminent in the air. can be trained in a short period at all. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Admiral Sueter) agrees with me in that. You want a man who is constantly in the air, who is not afraid of fog and clouds, and who is not afraid of testing with instruments.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Surely, if you take the careers of the four best pilots we had during the War, they are proper airmen? Even if they did only have six months' training, surely they are not afraid of clouds?

Captain BENN: I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I cannot speak from very great experience, but I think that those who know will agree that all that flying was flying by sight. It was all done by sight. It was not done by instruments. They probably said: "There is a church. There is the river. If I go over the river I shall come to the railway bridge, and that is where the enemy will be." But that is not navigation in the air. My own experience is that "stunt" pilots—I am using the word with the greatest admiration for those very gallant fighters—were very often themselves a great obstacle to advancing navigation in the air. They were so interested in the artistry of the work that they had no room for admiration for the science of the work. All they thought about was, "How much does this thing weigh?" I was an observer in the War, and I was always interested in taking up any new instrument in order to test it. It might have been a cinema to take films, or a new camera. I found that the brilliant pilot was always an obstacle. He would say, "What does this wireless thing weigh? It will interfere with my freedom of action. I do not want it. It will interfere with my personal manœuvring of the machine." That is an excellent quality, but it is not any step towards the navigation of the air.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What about the submarine?

Captain BENN: I cannot speak of submarines. I can only express my opinion, with great deference and without technical knowledge, that it requires years to produce a man, and it would require a generation to produce a race, who would figure as much at home in the air in difficult weather conditions as they do on the land or on the sea. Both hon. and gallant Gentlemen who spoke on this point seemed to forget that the discipline of the men who are serving in the Fleet is under the control of the naval commanding officer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckrose also
seemed to forget that if you wanted to identify a vessel you need only send a naval observer up in the aeroplane. You might have an Air Force man who had been so carefully trained in his naval duties that he was able to do the work, but, if there was any doubt, it would be quite easy to send up a naval officer of experience who could identify the vessel by noticing all those small points which are of so much value in making effective reconnaisance reports.
The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe spoke as if you could take the pilots of the Navy and isolate them because they are going to work with the Navy; but what about refresher courses in flying? What about keeping them in touch with all the great body of thought in flying, which must be centred in the Air Ministry? There, again, it does not matter whether it is material or personnel. If you amputate one Service it will be greatly to the detriment of the air arm of that Service, The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose illustrated that very well indeed, because he said a man in the Cavalry and a man in the Navy developed separate points of view, and he gave an instance of family discord of a minor type. He said he and his brother did not agree about anything. If that is true about a cavalryman or a sailor, how much more true must it be about an airman? If you want a man whose whole career, interest, thought and activity is centred in the air, and you handicap him by making him into a sailor—

Sir G. GAUNT: Have you been chasing rats with a bulldog?

Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Member constantly defeats me with his homely similes. Suppose you did divide the personnel into a naval personnel and an Air Force personnel? Who is going to train those people? Is there going to be a navall training school? Is there going to be an Air Force training school? And. having passed the training school, are they to be cut off and sent in to the Navy for good? You must draw the line somewhere.

Captain BRASS: They could go back to the central training school, if they wanted to.

Captain BENN: In that case there is very little difference between the suggestion my hon. and gallant Friend
makes and the conditions of affairs as it is to-day, and exactly the same is true of the material. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe referred to the Air Board and to the happenings at the beginning of the War. I gathered from him that he wanted to go back on our tracks. I contend that the best place to test a war machine is in war, and in its service which it renders in war. During the War, by the inexorable force of circumstances and by no desire on our part—in fact, it was forced on the Government against their will— we learned that, in order to make this country powerful in an element on which so much in the future will depend, it was necessary to build up a unified Air Force, controlled by an Air Minister acting independently of both arms. I suggest that it would be unwise, having learned that lesson, to go back upon it.

Sir S. HOARE: May I appeal to the House to let me have this Vote now, as we have had a very full discussion?

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS.

Ordered, That Mr. Betterton be discharged from the Committee:

Ordered, That Sir Berkeley Sheffield be added to the Committee. [colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered, That Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt be added to the Committee— [Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS COMMITTEE.

Ordered, That Mr. Rupert Gwynne be discharged from the Committee:

Ordered, That Captain Foxcroft be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The next business having been set down for a quarter past Eight, I will leave the Chair till that time.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

At Eight fifteen—

Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move,
That, in view of the confusion due to the existence of several Acts of Parliament dealing with compensation for injury to workmen, this House is of opinion that any Bill dealing with workmen's compensation introduced by the Government should contain provisions for codifying the Law.
Before dealing with the subject matter of this Motion, may I be allowed to express my sincere regret that the Minister in charge of the Department is not here? The Motion deals with a most important part of the work of his Department, and I should have thought, at least, that, as a courtesy to myself and the House, the Minister at the head of the Department would have been here to listen to what I have to say.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): He will be here in a very short time.

Mr. SEXTON: The changes in Departments are so sudden and mysterious in this House that one hardly recognises the new-comers. However, I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman will soon be here. [At this point Mr. Bridgeman entered the House.] I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived, because it is to him that I wish to address what I have to say on this subject. I know that this Motion is very limited in character. I fully realise its limitations, and I will endeavour, as far as possible, to keep within them. I wish, however, to confess that I have a little difficulty in doing so. The Motion does not suggest any change in existing laws, but merely a short survey of existing laws dealing with compensation for injury to workmen. I have not any legal training, and, therefore, cannot be expected to go into the legal technicalities so well as a man who has had a legal training. My real object, however, in moving the Motion, is to call attention to the confusion which exists to-day, owing to the existence of several Acts of Parliament dealing with the one subject of compensation for
injury to workmen. That is due to the fact that for the last 60 years the legal mind has been exercised—that Parliamentary draftsmen, Judges in our Courts, and the legal fraternity generally have been exercised—in raising obstacles in the path of industrial legislation. That is what has caused the present confusion. Not having a legally trained mind, I venture to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, for the characteristic generosity and fatherly care of the Chair in helping lame dogs over legal stiles.
For the past 60 years the legal profession generally has taken a professional and legal, but, to my mind, somewhat fiendish, delight in obstructing the path of industrial legislation, and, therefore, I shall have to go back for many years, to the years 1836; but I shall not inflict upon the House any very lengthy dissertation upon the laws of that period. At that time the only appeal that an injured workman had was under the common law, which was surrounded with so many obstacles, such as contributory negligence and common employment, that it was impossible for the workman, even if he were financially assisted, to secure a verdict under the then common law. The poverty of the workmen, and the poverty, comparatively speaking, of trade organisations, also militated against the chances of securing compensation.
One of the worst features of the common law of that time was that it was only in case of personal injury to the man when he was living that any compensation was granted for injury. Later on, it is true, the introduction of Lord Campbell's Act gave the right to the dependants of workmen to bring an action for compensation for injury, subject to the action being brought on the same basis of evidence as if the man were alive, and again the doctrine of contributory negligence and common employment made it physically and financially impossible for even the dependants of a workman to secure compensation. From that time until 1880 there was no real constitutional right, apart from the common law, by which an injured workman could secure compensation. The Employers' Liability Act, 1880, was passed for the purpose of abolishing the doctrine of common employment and contributory negligence, but it miserably failed to do anything of the kind, and to-day, although so much
modified, the law of contributory negligence and common employment is still prevalent and existing in the Employers' Liability Act, 1880.
Let me give three vital points in the Act. Not only has it carried over from the common law the doctrine of contributory negligence and common employment, but it has intensified the difficulty by the introduction of a new doctrine, in the form of the six weeks' notice of accident. I do not think I could give a better illustration—and I only give it because it is an illustration—than my own experience in this regard. It is typical of thousands of cases occurring under the same circumstances. I have stated my case in full before, not in this House, but outside it, but I will state it again for the benefit of the House, in the hope that it will influence right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway. It is only because I want to give a typical illustration that I deal with my own particular case. After the passing of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, I myself was very seriously injured at the docks. I do not want to go into details, but the fact that I was unconscious for over six weeks disqualified me from entering an action, at least that was one of the pleas the employer put up. There were two other points on which I was disqualified. Notwithstanding that I was obeying the orders of the foremen for the time being, notwithstanding that the machinery with which I was working was defective, all these points were quoted against me as a reason why the employer should not be held liable. The foreman, although he was in a responsible position, was considered a fellow worker It was understood that that was wiped out by the Employers' Liability Act. It defined a man in the position of a foreman as:
A person whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendence and who is not ordinarily engaged in manual labour.
There is a distinction, not in the Act perhaps, but in judge-made law, beween a manual labourer and a manual worker. A clerical man is supposed to be a manual worker. A man who works physically is engaged in manual labour. This is one of the intricacies of the law which stands in the way of men securing justice and right or compensation for injury.
The tragedy of all this legislation is
that the Legislature constructed its legislation on a wrong basis and under a wrong impression. They were legislating purely for men who are permanently employed, and the man who is casually employed, as I was, and the man who is a casual foreman, like the man who was over me, the men who are generally casually employed have all along, ever since the introduction of industrial legislation, been the legislative Ishmaelites of the industrial legislation of this House. I was working under a foreman. The foreman for the time being was a foreman for the day, but he was engaged in manual labour. I pointed out what I thought was a defect in the hook at the end of the rope and I was brutally told if I did not like to take the risk I could leave the job. Ordinary labourers, like I was at the time, took the risk, and that was cited, and very forcibly cited, as contributory negligence. These three points were quoted against me as a reason why I could not recover. At that time and up till very lately, they were not protected by any factory legislation. They had no protection till 1904 and all that any man of straw had to do was to invest two guineas with the Harbour Commission or the Harbour Board and seek a certificate of competency to be a stevedore and, by the rotten antiquated machinery, kill and maim men all the year round with impunity. I can quote case after case where this happened. One case in particular is typical of a man, who was an employer, who bought up all the rotten, decayed, condemned machinery, who subjected his workmen to all these risks. He was not only an employer but a householder. He built houses and compelled his workmen to live in them at a rent he placed upon them himself. He was the director of a loan company. He was the managing director of a funeral company who drew a dividend from the burial of his own victims, a sample of private enterprise that I make a present of to hon. Members opposite. This gentleman built a church out of the bricks of a local gaol, in front of which they used to hang people, and we assembled there every Sunday and joined in the Doxology.
Praise God from whom all blessings flow. 
In 1893 I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) and a few more who saw the urgent necessity of agitating for a change in the
law, arranged a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) who was then Home Secretary. To give the devil his due—I say it without offence—he helped us in a very generous and sympathetic manner and we own him a debt that I at least recognise in its entirety. He introduced on our suggestion a Bill which abolished contributory negligence and contracting out. It was met with very great opposition but it eventually passed by a large majority. It went to another place where a wrecking Amendment was inserted and it had to be dropped in this House. Then we had the 1895 Factories Act which so far as it went was a very good Act. But a kind of protest was raised by vested interests in the shape of the shipowners and it was so amended that the word "ship" was left out and only docks, wharves and quays were included. In 1897 came the first Workmen's Compensation Act, which excluded common employment and contributory negligence. But it excluded more. It excluded half a million men who were previously included in the Employers Liability Act, for by the omission of the word "ship" in the Act of 1895, a ship was not a factory and a factory was not a ship. Only the side of the ship that was tied or moored to the quay was a factory, and it was only a factory while the machinery was being used for loading and discharging from the quay. The off-side of the ship where gangs of men who were working, the starboard or the port side as the case might be, was not included in the Act as a factory. The result was that a man working with slings over what was called the factory side of the ship got his finger crushed, while another man who was working a sling from the side that was not a factory lost his arm. The man who crushed his finger got compensation because he was working on the factory side of the ship, while the man who lost his arm got nothing. Again, a sling of pig iron collapsed into the hatch and killed a man, but as the man was working on the non-factory side of the ship, there was no compensation payable, although the sling of pig iron came from the factory side of the ship. In order to qualify a man for compensation, you would have to split him down the middle, and his left side would be the factory side and his right side would not be the factory side.
Then we have the question of average earnings. It was understood, and I have a copy of a letter from the late Joseph Chamberlain on the subject, that the Workmen's Compensation Act based the compensation on 50 per cent. of the full average earnings of the workman 50 per cent. being the difference between the basis of full wages under the Employers' Liability Act. There are legal gentlemen in this House who know how this confusion occurred. When it came to the casual labourer, the reading of the Act is that the basis of compensation shall be fixed on the average earnings of the injured man in the employment in which he was injured. That meant that in many cases that I know of a man would work for two or three employers during the week. He earned a full week's wages, but on the last half-day of the sixth day he was injured, and instead of getting 50 per cent. of the full earnings, he got only 50 per cent of the half-day's employment with the firm where he was injured. The absurdity of that is, of course, obvious. I will give one further case. Two men were injured in putting down the hatches, and the learned Judge decided that as the day's work was over, the machinery of the ship was not being used, the ship was no longer a factory, and the putting and taking off of the hatches was not part of the process of loading and discharging. He likened it to the case of putting a cork in a bottle, on the ground that that was not part of the process of filling the bottle. How could you fill a bottle without taking the cork out, and how could you keep it full without putting the cork in?
These are some of the absurdities of the legislation of this House dealing with industrial compensation for injuries. The 1906 Act does to a very great extent remedy some of the evils of the old Act of 1896; but a section was lifted out of the Factory Act dealing with the inspection of buildings, which laid it down that the Act did not apply to buildings unless they were 30 feet high. As a result of that, the Law Lords for nearly two weeks sat deciding whether a well 30 feet deep was a building 30 feet high. The 1906 Act has removed many of these faults, but even now it carries great evils. The evil of contracting out is still there, as it is in the Employers' Liability Act. In many cases it is made a condition of employ-
ment that the workmen shall contract out of the Act. I know that there are safeguards as to the registrar having to be satisfied that an equivalent system is created, but it is not always the case, far from it. The six weeks' notice is still maintained, and so is contracting out. It is a pernicious doctrine, a delusion and a snare. The man is insured and he is compelled to undergo a medical examination. The medical referee says that he is fit for light work, and the Judge reduces the compensation accordingly in many cases to 1d. per week. Anybody who knows anything about docks knows that there is no light work there; it is all donkey work. The result is that the man fails to fulfil his obligation under the order of the Court. Every Saturday when I go back to the North, a poor unfortunate fellow haunts my office. He is crippled for life, unable to do his ordinary employment, and he has no compensation, and no job, for nobody will employ him. These things occur under the existing law.
Inquiries have been made, but even the Report of the Holman Gregory Committee does not provide for compulsory insurance of employés. We have men of straw, contractors who take on a job who have no money, and who, if a man is injured in their employ, are not able to pay, or they go bankrupt. There is no protection for the man. Again, on the calculation of earnings, the onus is cast upon the man of proving what he has earned under half-a-dozen or a dozen different employers. The ordinary labourer is not a man whom you can ask to keep an account of all the employers by whom he has been employed during a period of 12 months or three years, as the case may be. There is another point of very great importance. If a man fails in an action under the Employers' Liability Act he is supposed to have another chance by being enabled to proceed under the lesser Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act. Very often he does, and the result in the majority of cases is that out of the compensation which is awarded to him he has to pay the cost of the previous action.
Why should there not be a codification as between these two Acts? Why should not the judge be able to advise the man not to spend the money of himself or his organisation in fighting the actions? Why cannot the point be decided at the one trial in the one place and at the
one time? The result of the present state of affairs is that the proportion of cases taken under the bigger Act has gone down in 10 years from thousands of cases, in which some verdicts were secured, to about two per cent. and that the remaining 98 per cent. of the cases are taken under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which gives the lesser compensation to the injured workman. My object in bringing this before the House is that the Home Secretary should consider whether in future legislation of this character the legal ingenuity of the draftsman could not devise some scheme whereby all these difficulties would be abolished in connection with obtaining compensation for injury to workmen, and that human suffering may thus be modified to a considerable extent.
Above all I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us a little more protection against accident. All the money in the world—and I say this because the Factory Acts are linked together with the Workmen's Compensation Act—will not compensate the widow and orphans for the loss of a breadwinner, nor compensate a man for the loss of a limb. Protection is worth millions of pounds of compensation, and if in any new Act more stringent measures are taken and more drastic penalties are inflicted for accidents which might be avoided it would be a very good thing. We had assurances last night from right hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the Gangway of sympathy for the working classes of this country. But I would suggest that right hon. Gentlemen should in this connection remember the vigorous biblical words
Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees! hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones.

Mr. TILLETT: I beg to second the Motion.
It is a very prosaic, very ordinary sort of Motion, but it represents some of the greatest tragedies of industrial life. It is not so much an appeal for the bottom dog, but a claim for the bottom dog. We on these benches believe that we shall not be in the future always in the position of having to appeal, but that we shall be in the position to demand and exact fair play within the law for those who are, after
all, the most valuable citizens of our Empire. With all the best will possible on behalf of our masters and employers, work in all the dangerous occupations is carried on under great difficulty. Beneath the claim which we are making to night is the claim of that mangled body which falls down a ship's hold or from a great height, the claim for the widow and the orphan of these martyrs, that their needs shall be recognised and their protection guaranteed by the law. I am not at all anxious to blame lawyers as such. I think as a class they are about equal to any other class, no better and no worse. But they are creatures of circumstances like the rest of us, and I do believe that if the conscience and the forensic learning of our greatest lawyers could be fathomed, the legal members of this country would be with us on these benches in demanding fair play within the law for those who toil and spin.
It may be that we are trespassing upon the occupation and the industry of the lawyers. I believe that the greater the efficiency the greater the economy, and the greater the economy in the preservation of human life the greater the righteousness of the country and the greater the safety of those who work for their living, who toil to increase the prosperity of our country. I have had considerably over 40 years' experience in dealing with Acts of Parliament which were misunderstood by the lawyers and misunderstood by the Judges. And it is not merely ridicule to say that the Judges did not know when a ship was a ship and when a well was a building or a well was a well. These technicalities cannot help us. I am not saying that the employers as a body are callous or brutal, but that a large number of employers appear to be indifferent to the realities of the situation and to the value of life to those who are employed by them.
Sometimes when an employer is a fair-minded man he has to work under an insurance company. The insurance company has no soul to save and no body to kick, and it utilises the law with such meticulous care and perfidious exactitude that many a Judge is perturbed and prevented from coming to a proper conclusion. I am not saying that all judge-made law is bad law. Sometimes our Judges have saved the laws from being made ridiculous—laws made by this House—but on the average judge-made
law is a class-made law, and in industrial matters absolutely so in 75 per cent. of cases. I am not asking now that we shall alter the law in such a manner that all these grievances shall be redressed without Debate in this House, but I do claim that the co-ordination and codification of the law would simplify every judicial act and process of law. Every business house has to organise each of its departments. It learns from experience. Are our State Departments never to learn by experience? Must we always create such an agitation as to manifest the menace of the strike or other violent action?
We want this House to appreciate its own shortcomings. We as a Labour party are part and parcel of this House, but we are prepared to take our corner in a practical business way in so codifying the law that it shall be understood by the average intelligence. I am not blaming the Home Office. Really, I feel a great sympathy with the Home Office, for it cannot make head or tail of the cock-and-bull forms of the law with which it has to deal. It does not know where to take full command of its own duty, or upon what other Department it will trespass, and then in a moment of forgetfulness it may fail to perform some act that is essential in the process of the law. I suggest that if the Home Secretary had his way he would reorganise the Department which deals with the law in such a manner that the object and meaning of the law could be carried out. I could site 101 or 1,001 cases of similar accidents being treated in different ways, according to the mood of the judge. A judge might be a very good lawyer on some cases, but if his liver is not in good form his understanding may be in bad form, and he may not always have that touch of human sympathy which is necessary to those who require the aid of the law.
9.0 P M.
We are anxious to force upon the Government the work of codifying the law. I would not care if you spent £1,000,000 upon the lawyers, or an equal sum on the doctors. We are not here for economy, so far as the doctor and the lawyer are concerned. We want to give the lawyer and the doctor a fair and square chance, and I believe that they will do justice to their professions. We move too slowly. It took some of us 25
years to get recognition of casual labour, and the more casual the labour the harder is the law upon it. The lives of men are concerned. Give us these Acts so fairly and squarely that no firm, no employer, no contractor, no insurance company, no lawyer guiding them, no directors, shall be able to escape from what is made plain to the plain man. That is all we ask. We ask it in a business spirit. In days gone by, as I have listened to judges, serene and profound and dignified beyond the measure of the law's dignity, pronounce judgment upon the claims of victims in a cold-blooded manner, I have wondered that I have not been hanged. Had it been known what I was thinking at the time I might have gone long since.
One feels for the Home Secretary in administering the law, for he cannot know what the law is. If he had six Attorney-Generals in succession, each one would give a version of his own. The lawyers do not know the law, the judges do not know, the insurance companies do not know, and the employers do not know. We may have learned diatribes on the glorious philanthropy of the law. We do not want philanthropy; we want proper protection. If the laws are intelligently constructed, intelligently codified, intelligently presented, numberless accidents and deaths by the hundred would be prevented. It is merely because the law is not definite and emphatic that the victims of accidents are robbed again and again. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have behind them their university education, their culture and their reading, and I am not here to cast aspersions upon them in that respect, but looking upon the law as it stands, I wonder that the governing classes are governing classes when they have been so supine, so callous, so indifferent to the essential primitive element, the sacredness of life. We are here, not to appeal, but to demand that the Government shall take this matter in hand. It is of the greatest possible importance. We ask for justice in the name of every child who has been robbed of its father and everyone who have been robbed of her breadwinner. We ask in the name of the dead, in the name of those who have by thousands gone to untimely ends, and in the name of the future that human lift; shall be held sacred. We want to preserve human life. That is the greatest economy which
can be advocated in this House, and I demand of the Home Office and of this House that the law on this subject be codified so that it shall be understood of the people.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Although I cannot support a great many of the things which have been said in support of the Motion, I rise to support the principle of codifying the law relating to the liability of emloyers for accidents to their workpeople and so systematising it that we shall get an effective and clearly understood system. One's memory, however, goes back to a time when another branch of the law was codified in this country and one of the most skilled draftsmen of the day—Mr. Chalmers, as he then was— was engaged in codifying the law relating to very important matters. After very carefully drafting the Bill, which became an Act of Parliament, he was appointed a County Court Judge, and it was said of him—or he said so himself—that for some years after the Act was passed he spent the period between breakfast and the sitting of the Court each morning in reading the reports in the "Times" in order to find out what his code meant that particular morning. If we arc going to codify the law relating to this important subject we do not want to bring about a remunerative state of litigation so far as the legal profession is concerned, hut we do want to bring about a condition of affairs in which the ordinary man would be able to understand what the position really is. I do not think we are helped to that result by speeches of the class which we have had from the Mover and Seconder. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has done more than most men to improve the lot of his fellow-men. We all know how sincerely he works from day to day to improve the lot of those among whom he lives and for whom he lives, and we value his experience on this important question of accidents to workmen. To-night he has wandered a little astray from the subject, and has failed to consider it in all its bearings. I admit there are undoubted blots on the law relating to accidents to workmen, but we should try to appreciate the real position and what the Government is being asked to deal with. The common law of this country is based upon performance of duty, and
there have always been recognised by the common law certain definite and clear principles of duty on the part of the employer to his workpeople. With all deference to the hon. Member for St. Helens, the employer of whom he spoke who collected rotten plant and material was running a very grave risk. I am surprised that those with whom the hon. Member for St. Helens is able to consult from time to time, did not show him how to deal very effectively by way of damages with that particular employer. I think the hon. Member has failed to realise the true position. There is a duty by the employer to his workmen, and that duty is to provide proper plant and proper working systems.

Mr. SEXTON: May I be allowed to explain? We have no legal protection against an employer using defective machinery.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I venture to differ entirely from the hon. Member. So far as I know it has always been an accepted principle of the common law of this country that an employer was bound, at the risk of an action for damages—

Mr. SEXTON: Oh yes, that is all right

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Yes, damages which would make good the loss if he failed in his duty—he is, as I say, bound to provide reasonably safe plant for the purposes of his business; he is also bound by the common law to carry on his business by a reasonably safe system, and he was bound to employ reasonably competent servants. On the other hand, the workman himself was expected, and I hope will always be expected to take reasonable care of himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "He would get the sack if he did!"] No one on this side of the House interrupted hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope they will let me state my proposition without interruption. That is the position. There is a duty on each side to take reasonable care. Unfortunately for the history of industrial law in this country there was in the year 1837 a decision which is an entirely artificial excrescence on our common law. The case was one in which a butcher's boy was injured by reason of the fact that the trap in which he was driving about, delivering his master's meat, broke down through its bad condition. He brought an action
against the employer, and it was held that he should have said, "I am not going again into that rotten cart," and inasmuch as he did not do so, he had himself voluntarily undertaken the risk. In other words, he had made it a part of the contract between himself and his employer that the rotten cart should be used. I venture to think, with all deference to those great lawyers who, in the course of time, followed a great many of the things which were said in that decision, that that decision was really an excrescence upon our common law and entirely foreign to the spirit of the common law of this country.
That case was followed by a series of other cases, until ultimately it was decided that it was presumed that when a man went into an employment he contracted with his employer to bear the risk of the negligence of his fellow-workmen, although, in fact, if any outsider had been injured by the negligence of the fellow-workmen, the employer would have been liable. That, again, was following out a trend of decision which had originated in the way that I have suggested and was, so far as my opinion goes, entirely foreign to the ordinary spirit of our law. Following that, just before the year 1880 an attempt was made to deal with the question of common employment. There are two things which are really bound up together —the doctrine of voluntarily undertaking the risk and, arising from that, the doctrine of common employment, which meant voluntarily undertaking the risk of your fellow-workmen's negligence. Just before 1880 a movement was made to deal with that doctrine, and I think it is well known that there was in fact prepared, in the year 1879, a Bill which proposed to abolish the whole doctrine of common employment. I do not think it went as far as proposing to abolish the doctrine of what is known as volenti non fit, voluntarily undertaking the risk, but a Committee sat, which reported against the Bill, and the result was the Employers' Liability Act of 1880.
Judging from what has subsequently happened, I doubt if there ever has been a more unfortunate piece of legislation than the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. It purported to do away with the doctrine of common employment; it did not purport to do away with voluntarily undertaking the risk, but it was in fact, if one may use
such a term of an Act of Parliament, almost fraudulent, because it did not do anything such as it purported to do. It did away to some extent with the doctrine of common employment, but only to this extent, that from certain classes of workmen it took away the defence of common employment, so far as the person in common employment was in a position of superintendence or, in other words, delegated with the power and duty of the employer, but it went no further than that, and even what it did, it did in a very incomplete fashion. For example, the definition of "workman" was taken by reference from another Act of Parliament, the Employer and Workman Act, 1875, and a great deal of the difficulty arose from that. In fact, seamen are to-day excluded from the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, although the Section which excludes them from the definition "workman" in the Employer and Workman Act, 1875, has itself long since been repealed.
But quite apart from all that, although the remedy that it gave was one for negligence, it seriously limited the amount of damages that could be recovered. So far as damages can be recovered under the common law, damages must be such a sum of money as, without taking a fanciful view of it, but taking a business view, will compensate the man who is injured for the loss that he has sustained and is likely to sustain. The Employers' Liability Act was an inroad upon that principle. It limited the amount, and one interpretation of it has led to this. If an apprentice, for example, be injured in such a way as to deprive him of earning capacity for the rest of his life. Should his only remedy be under the Employers' Liability Act, he will get a mere pittance, probably of £20 or £30, namely, three years' wages as an apprentice, and that is supposed to compensate him in a case where there has, in fact, been real negligence on the part of the employer or of a person given superintendence as the delegate of the employer. That, in itself, was an extremely unfortunate result, but there were other unfortunate results.
Actions under the Act could be brought only in the County Court. There might be serious question as to whether there was not a common law claim, but you could
not try the two together without limiting your common law claim to the jurisdiction of the County Court, which in those days was only £50, so that in a case where you might be entitled to £300 or £400 if you chose to use your alternate remedy at common law, you had to limit your common law claim to £50, which was the limit of jurisdiction of the County Court. I think that was a most unfortunate piece of legislation. It would have been far better if Parliament, instead of putting upon the Statute Book a complicated and intricate piece of legislation, had merely passed a simple Act abolishing the defence of voluntarily undertaking the risk and the defence of common employment, and leaving the employer in the position in which, in my submission, he was under the old common law, of being liable to pay full compensatory damages to the man who was injured by reason of the negligence of the employer, or of the person given superintendence as the delegate of the employer.
I will pass from that to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think again the difficulty that arose there was that an attempt was made to deal with the matter in too elaborate a fashion. It is all very well to blame those who have to interpret, but I think, in turn, one may say that not a little blame is to be put upon those who frame legislation in such a way that it is almost impossible to interpret. The principle behind the Workmen's Compensation Act was surely a right principle—the principle that without negligence you shall be insured to a certain extent by the employer in whose employment you are injured, but that must not be carried too far. The hon. Member for St. Helens put forward a view with regard to employer's liability which, I venture to think, is one that cannot be upheld for a moment. You have two systems, the common law—if you abolish common employment and volenti non fit—on the one hand, making the employer pay the full amount of the loss if injury is caused by his negligence or by the act of someone for whom he is responsible. You have the Workmen's Compensation Act, practically insuring the workmen, even against his own negligence; because, if he is guilty of wilful default himself, it is only where the injuries are of slightest possible character
that he is deprived of the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the sort of insurance that that Act of Parliament gives. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, the words are, that if there is serious and permanent injury, or death, notwithstanding the fact that the man has brought the whole of it upon himself, the employer has to pay.
That is the position, and I venture to think it is as high as you can go in the interests of justice. The hon. Member for St. Helens spoke about abolishing the defence of contributory negligence. Upon what possible ground can you ask that an employer should be compelled to make up the full loss to a man who, by reason of his own negligence, has brought about the injuries in respect of which he is claiming? I think, in their own business affairs, and in their own lives, any one of the hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the benches opposite would be the first to say that if a man, under circumstances in which they were involved, brought about injuries for which he claimed against any one of them by his own negligent conduct, it was neither common sense nor justice.

Mr. SEXTON: I never advocated anything of the kind.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Then I was right in saying that the hon. Member for St, Helens had completely misapprehended what contributory negligence was. He does not deny the principle that a man should not be entitled to claim the full damages which he could get at common law if, in fact, he has brought about his injuries by his own negligence. There is another point upon which the hon. Member spoke, namely, the question of costs. Again, I think, he failed to put the true position before the House. An action at common law or an action under the Employers' Liability Act involves the employer, and also those who represent the workman, in a considerable amount of expense. It is a very expensive proceeding. You can, to-day, if that proceeding fails, obtain compensation, if you are entitled to it, at the close of the proceeding, and before going away from the judge who has tried the case. Is it not only fair, under those circumstances, that inasmuch as the costs and expenses of the whole proceedings have been caused by the claim at common law or under the Employer's Liability Act, some.
portion of that—that is all that is done in, practice—should be returned by the man who has put the employer to all the expense of the proceedings?
If the Government do anything to deal with this question of workmen's compensation, it will be far better not to attempt to deal with it by a mere amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Acts as they at present stand. It will be far better to deal with the whole subject of the employer's liability for injuries caused to his workmen. In doing that, the really true principle is to get back to the original principle of the common law. That is, that where the employer has failed in his duty the man should not be prevented from recovering by any ridiculous suggestion of common employment or of voluntarily undertaking the risk; but that, where there is no failure of duty by the employer, and yet an accident happens, without negligence on either side, you should have the limited amount of insurance which the Workmen's Compensation Acts give, adapted, if you like, reasonably to the time; at the same time always preserving this, that that can only be a partial remedy, while the full remedy is reserved for those cases where there has been a real failure of duty on the part of the employer, without a failure of duty on the part of the man.

Mr. W. A. JOWITT: We have just listened to an exceedingly interesting and well reasoned speech from my hon. and learned Friend. Having heard it, I am really not quite certain whether he was speaking in favour of this Motion or against it. This is an interesting occasion, because we are really going back to historical ground. As the Mover of the Motion reminded us, in 1893 the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the then Home Secretary, introduced a Rill into this House to abolish the doctrine of common employment—a doctrine which, as I think all hon. Members will agree, it is highly regrettable was ever invented. The right Hon. Gentleman, in introducing that Bill, described the whole of the principle of the Measure in these words:
Where a person of his own responsibility and for his own profit sets in motion agencies which create risk for others, he ought to be civilly responsible for the consequences if that which he does.
An Amendment Was moved by no less a person than the late Mr. Joseph Chamber-
lain. I do not think the Mover of the Motion to-night was quite accurate in his, recollection of what took place. The Amendment of Mr. Chamberlain was in these terms:
That no amendment of the law relating to employer's liability will be final or satisfactory which does not provide compensation for all injuries sustained in the ordinary course of their employment. 
In describing the rival principle which he was advocating in that Amendment, he said:
I hold it to be a. moral obligation on this House to provide, in every case of injury, that the person injured should be compensated so far as pecuniary compensation can be afforded. 
Those two principles run on somewhat divergent lines. I find myself, and I think I can speak for those who are sitting round me, in cordial agreement with the Motion proposed to-night. It is material to consider, quite briefly, the position of the existing common law. There were two defences, to the claim at common law. There was the defence, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) characterised as the defence of voluntarily undertaking the risk. When the Mover of the Motion instanced a case in which a workman, injured by bad plant or bad machinery, was not able to get compensation, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to doubt that that could be good law. I am bound to say I prefer to agree with the Mover of the Motion. I think he might not be able to recover, for the reason that it might be said, "You knew this machinery was bad machinery, and yet, knowing it was bad machinery, you voluntarily went on working it; consequently, you cannot complain. "In the very Debate to which I have just referred, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, speaking from his recollection as President of the Board of Trade, referred to this very striking case: A master went on a voyage on a ship which was ill-found and in an unseaworthy condition. She foundered, and he was killed, and his widow brought a claim at common law to recover compensation. That claim was defeated, and defeated for this reason. He had written a letter to his wife, in which he said: "I know that this ship is ill-found, but if I point it out to my employers, I am a marked man for the rest of my life." Thirty years ago Mr. Joseph Chamberlain
pointed out that that was a monstrous state of affairs, but the doctrine of voluntarily taking the risk still applies, and is part of the law of this land. Speaking for myself and those associated with me, I think it is high time that that doctrine went. I think that principle would have applied to the case to which my hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution referred. If the workman of whom he was speaking had voluntarily worked at machinery knowing it to be out of order, he might, by reason of the fact that he had voluntarily continued to work at that machinery, have lost his case. I looked up to-day, as a matter of interest, a case in which a man was engaged in lifting heavy articles to a floor above. The original system had been by means of a net, in which the thing to be lifted had been enclosed, and, for the sake of greater economy, the employer got rid of the net and substituted a sort of lift. The workman continued to work it because be had no option. He was seriously injured owing to the lift giving way. He brought an action, and one of the Judges said:
If the man did not think it safe, he should have left. 
And the other Judge said:
It may be inhuman so to carry on works as to expose workmen to peril, but it does not create a right of action from the resulting injury if a workman, knowing the peril, voluntarily uses the lift. 
The Judges acted on the principle of volenti non fit injuria, which, speaking for myself, I think, is often quite as deplorable as the doctrine of common employment. The doctrine of common employment is founded on a legal fiction, which has no sort of justification in fact. Take the simplest case. A train is going along a line, and, owing to the negligence of the engine-driver, it runs off the line, and injures passengers. Any passenger can bring an action at common law, and recover against the company for the negligence of the engine-driver, but, for some reason or other, the guard in the rear carriage, or the stoker assisting the engine-driver, cannot recover. The theory of this dictrine of common employment, as I follow it, depends upon this. It is supposed that when these men—passenger guard and stoker—entered the employ of the railway company, they each said to the company, "I
will be willing to take all the risks of negligence on the part of my fellow employés." It is ridiculous. Of course, they did no such thing, and, as far as the doctrine of common employment is concerned, like the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, it is high time it went. The Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was admittedly a mere compromise, and a very unsatisfactory compromise, and, speaking from my early recollection of the Bar—and I am sure all lawyers in the House will agree with me—there is no single Act of Parliament which is such a morass of pitfalls, and so full of technicalities by which justice can be defeated as the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. Everybody realised that, and, after it was passed, in 1886 a Select Committee sat to consider this very question of superintendence referred to by the Mover of the Resolution. They reported that the definition of "superintendence" contained in the Act was wholly inadequate, and the Government of the day, in 1888 and 1890, introduced Bills to remedy that defect. In 1893 the right hon. Member for Paisley, as I have already said, introduced his Bill to abolish the doctrine of common employment altogether.
The principle to which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had referred, namely, that every man who is injured while working, or his dependants, should be paid suitable compensation is now enshrined, as we know, in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but I should like to point out, speaking as a lawyer —as a creature of circumstances, as the Seconder of the Resolution told us we were—the extreme difficulty in which the young lawyer is in because these things generally come before young lawyers when advising a client as to what remedy he should take. The hon. Member who has just spoken said, quite rightly, that it is a peculiar feature of this branch of the law, that you have your claim an common law, which must be brought in the High Court; you have got your claim under the Employers' Liability Act, which can only be brought in a County Court; you have your claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which, although it must be brought in a County Court, is brought before the County Court Judge, not sitting as a County Court Judge, but as an arbitrator; and, though theoretically it may be possible, in practice I have never known anybody succeed in com
bining these proceedings in one case. Every day in the law courts we are combining in one action various ways of putting our case, and it would be an intolerable injustice if we could not do that. In this connection you cannot do it. The young barrister, faced with that situation, has to consider this. He thinks to himself, this is a case in which. I think, I might do well at common law. It has a great advantage. The amount is unlimited; you get paid a lump sum, and there are no miserable technicalities. He has got to realise, however, that if he brings his action and fails, he cannot then take the other proceedings. It is quite true that if he has failed in his action, he can get the court then and there to assess the compensation.
I looked up a case to-day which shows how nugatory that becomes, or may become, in view of the liability to pay costs. There was a case in the Scottish Courts not very long ago in which a man brought an action at common law. He lost. He then asked for his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to be assessed, and the Court assessed it at 12s. per week. The cost of the High Court proceedings, which he lost, came to £187. Approximately, at 12s. a week, it would take something like six years to pay off the £187 costs. That is not much good to a man. There is more in it than that. Supposing he brings his action at common law and fails, because of this doctrine of common employment. We will assume a case in which you might have got over that common employment under the Employers' Liability Act. The Act seems really—I know it is not—to be drawn up with devilish ingenuity, to make it difficult for the workman, because he cannot in practice get over this common law action until six months have passed, and that is the limit of time within which he may bring his action under the Employers' Liability Act. So that he cannot, if he has brought his action at common law and failed, then start his action under the Employers' Liability Act. It does not end there. If you advise, as most of us used to advise, that the best course is to take proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, because there, at any rate, you are much more likely to get something, cases sometimes arise in which
a man fails to recover under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although he could have recovered at common law.
Let me give an instance. A man may be a casual labourer employed anywhere about his employers' business, and he brings his action. He thinks he is employed—it is a borderline case—under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and fails because he is not under that Act. Having tried to get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act he is debarred from pursuing the matter, and from bringing an action under the common law. Further, I remember—and hon. Members sitting around me will remember—when we used to be instructed as lawyers for employers, and where the ease was brought under the common law, and we had a bad case and knew it, the first thing we did was to look round and to see if we could not say that "This man has accepted compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, "and if we could say that we knew he would be prevented at common law.
Speaking as a "creature of circumstance," what I have stated is not the lawyer's fault. He is bound to do the best he can for his client so far as he can under the existing law. But it is the duty of this House to see that the existing law is put on a proper basis. I think hon. Members will all agree that in certain cases, fortunately rave, there are bad employers or bad insurance companies, and it was a common dodge, when a man had been injured and had brought an action at common law, to go and get him to accept money, and get him to sign a receipt saying he had got it under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Once he put his hand to a document of that kind, unless it could be said that he was so ignorant that he did not understand it, his claim at common law had gone, and gone for ever. It used to be done. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is now!"] I am sorry to hear that, but I quite accept the hon. Member's statement that it is still being done. If it is done, it is time it was done no longer. It seems to me that the practical steps that this House should take, and I hope the Home Secretary will sec if he cannot give effect to them, are these:
First of all, it seems to me you ought to take care that the tribunal which is going to be able to determine these claims is the same tribunal in each case.
that is to say, that if the workman comes before the County Court Judge he ought to be able to present to him as you do in an ordinary case, and prove to him if necessary, a threefold claim, any one of three ways, so as to be able to win on one of them. Secondly, and I do not want to say more than a sentence or two on this, but I hope the recommendations outlined in the Report of the Holman-Gregory Committee in respect to Workmen's Compensation will be carried into effect The maximum in the case of death is now £300. That may be adequate where the widow is left alone; but it must be grossly inadequate if she is left with a large family. I cannot help thinking that the principle of that Report is right, and that the amount to be awarded should depend upon the extent of the need. Next I earnestly trust if the present System of weekly payment is to be continued, that something will be done to stop the abuse of it relating to incapacity or partial incapacity. The money is paid for some time, and then the insurance company stop it on the ground, as they say, that the man has recovered. That places the man in an intolerable situation. He has got no money coming in, and then if there are dishonest people —and there are unfortunately a few dishonest people about—by placing him in a difficult position they can then get him into such a condition that they can make their own terms. That used to be the case I believe it is still so. From my constituency I have had recently many complaints of that sort of thing happening.
Next, I earnestly hope that some scheme of compulsory insurance will be introduced. I have, in my own experience, both as a Member of this House and as a member of the Bar, known many heartrending eases in which the award was made, but in which the employer was quite unable to carry out that award because he was not insured and had no adequate amount of money. Finally and, perhaps, most important, I do hope the award not only in the case of death, but also in the case of partial incapacity, will be brought up to a more adequate figure than it is at present. The Holman-Gregory Commission recomended 66⅔ per cent. of the wage, and I hope that that will be the minimum figure rather than the maximum, and that that will
be the amount to be inserted in the Act. If that is done, I should still be sorry to think that the common law action against the employer was done away with. I think it is a right and a healthy thing that the employer should be taught that he has got to be careful and that, if he is not careful, he will be punished, and he will be punished by the jury awarding damages in an action brought at common law. I should like to-point this out—it might have been useful to some hon. Members in the Debate last night—that, without increasing the premiums the insurance companies have undertaken to pay larger benefits. At the present time I think that 48 per cent. only of the amount expended in premiums goes to pay benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Less than that!"] An hon. Member says "less," but somewhere about it, anyhow. The rest comes under working expenses, commissions, profits, etc.
For these reasons, apart from the further reason that this branch of the law is utterly impossible to understand for anyone who is not a specialist, I support the Resolution. We have yearly volumes of reports dealing with these workmen's compensation cases. There are, I think, probably 15 or 16 volumes now dealing with these cases alone since the Act of 1906. It is utterly impossible for any lawyer to undertake any of these cases unless he is deeply versed in all these 15 or 16 tomes. How on earth any layman can hope to be up in them unless he has a large library and ample time to study, I cannot think. It is time that the results of these various decisions were brought together in intelligible language, and placed in an Act of Parliament simple enough for that class to understand for whose benefit this Act was introduced.

Major BIRCHALL: I find myself in hearty agreement with the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution to-night. I hope that as a result of the expression of opinion on all sides of the House that the Government, during the long period of four years which probably they have before them, will be able to deal with this very complicated question. There is no doubt that the one thing beyond all others that the workmen want in this country is a sense of security, a sense of feeling that if accident or ill-health comes there is some provision not only for himself, but for his family. These various Acts
of Parliament and common law are excellent in idea, but they are very faulty in the manner in which they are carried out. An Act which operates badly very often creates more uncertainty and more sense of insecurity than no Act at all. There arc so many hard cases, and so many cases which are thrown out almost inevitably owing to the technicalities of the law, and so many utterly unintelligible decisions under the Acts, that the sense of security on the part of the workman who suffers from an accident is lacking.
The only fault I find with the Motion is that it docs not go far enough. I wish the Mover, in addition to asking that the law of compensation for accident should be codified, had asked that all kinds of insurance should be codified. In my opinion, the Government would be well advised to consider whether matters of insurance, unemployment, accident, health and hospital, and so on could be combined under one administration representing the workmen, the employers, and the community. It would be well worth while doing that. Much time would be saved and more money would be available for the compensation of the workmen themselves.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has not been mentioned to-night in this connection. I have in my hand an official paper, entitled, "Statistics of Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. "I want to draw the attention of the House to the enormous waste which is going on to-day under those Acts, and to the enormous sums which employers of labour are asked to pay for the very small result which the workmen receive. These are official figures for the year 1921. I find that the employers of labour had to contribute to the insurance companies £8,250,000. Of that £8,250,000 the workmen received in compensation less than £3,000,000. Where is the other £5,250,000? I propose to give the House a very few figures in a very few minutes. The facts can be obtained by every Member, but they may have been overlooked. The facts are these. Of the £8,250,000 contributed by employers—contributed by industry as a charge upon industry—the workmen themselves only received £3,000,000, and that £3,000,000 included the legal costs in
getting it. Therefore the workmen got less than £3,000,000 out of £8,250,000. Of the balance, one third, roughly, went in administration, and one third went in profit to the companies. Whatever may be said for private enterprise, the test of private enterprise must be economy and efficiency in working, and if, in the carrying out of compulsory compensation —the whole idea and basis of which is the benefit of the workmen —the workmen only get one third of the amount industry ha to contribute, then I say it is neither efficient nor economical. In making this codification, as those concerned are asked to do by the Mover of the Resolution, I hope occasion will be taken to look into the question of the cost of administration of these Acts by the insurance companies, and that it will be found possible, either to reduce the burden on the employers, and therefore partially remove the burden upon industry, or increase the amount of compensation which the workmen receive, which would be equally satisfactory. It seems to be altogether an untenable position that only one third of the amount contributed should go to the workmen, one third to the cost of administration and one third in profits to the shareholders of the companies. I hope this Debate to-night will draw the attention of those concerned to these facts, and that some means may be found of remedying them.

10.0 P.M:

Mr. WIGNALL: I am sure we are deeply indebted to the hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt) for his very able exposition of the law of compensation as it exists to-day, and for the very striking testimony which he has given for the need of codifying all the laws relating to workmen's compensation, and for the need of eliminating and dealing with some of the evils which exist. The only speech which has been delivered, supposedly delivered, against the Motion was, in my opinion, the strongest speech which was made to-night in support of the Motion. It might have been unintentional. It might have been intended for an entirely different purpose; but anyone who sat and listened to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) must agree that he brought all his legal knowledge and powers of persuasion to prove that the condition of affairs as it exists
to-day is wrong and needs to be put right. I have heard that word "reasonable," which the hon. and learned Member has quoted, argued in the County Courts and in the Assize Courts in compensation cases so frequently that I have almost got sick of the word. It all depends on what is the view-point of the judge as to what is "reasonable." When two learned legal gentlemen, such as we have listened to to-night, one on each side, tries to persuade his lordship that "reasonable" is what one says it means, and the other tries to persuade his lordship that "reasonable" is in accordance with the view he takes, I do not wonder the judge is perplexed and troubled, and gives a decision sometimes very reluctantly, because he has been battered almost to death by the legal gentlemen who are trying to help the Court. Of course, it is their business, as the hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools has said. They have to do the best for their clients, but in doing their best for their clients they very often confuse the jury and certainly perplex his lordship.
It would be folly, indeed, for any of my party—I have missed our particular legal luminary on our side—to attempt to expound the law. No two legal gentlemen who are arguing a case on different sides ever agree, certainly in Court. They might agree before they get in, and they might agree after they go out, but their business is to disagree while they are in Court. Therefore it would be folly, indeed, for any of us laymen to attempt to combat any of the statements made by the learned and hon. Members.
But we have something, after all, to go by, and to fortify us in our request which is now under consideration. We have personal, practical experience, and we have had to do a great deal in bringing clients to the hon. gentlemen who confuse the jury. We have had a lot to do in assisting to prepare cases, and while that word "reasonable" remains, I can assure the House that we are very much troubled about it. Perhaps I shall not be out of order in giving one or two illustrations from my own personal knowledge. I remember one very important case, tried in the County Court, of a man whose foot was badly broken. The man was working on a staging on a ship that was being discharged, and as the cargo was coming
out the ship was lightening and rising above the water. The iron plate was getting a bit of a tilt, and as the man was bringing his load down the iron plate tipped over and broke his foot. It was held that the man did not take reasonable care, that he ought to have known that the plate was likely to tilt, and so the case was lost.
I will give an illustration of a combined action we have heard so much about. There comes to my mind the case of a man who had his leg torn right away from the hip. He thought and believed, and others who were assisting him believed, that he had a very good case in common law. His case was taken to the Assize Court. The common employment argument was brought forward and used with all powers of eloquence by legal gentlemen to prove that this pernicious doctrine was right. This poor fellow with his leg torn out, because somebody else had done something that contributed to the accident, lost his action and the common employment defence carried. Then he was awarded under the Compensation Act a sum of £1 per week. The costs in that case amounted to over £260, and I would have taken that man something like 30 years to have paid the amount in small deposits. Others came to his help, of course, and he was relieved of a considerable portion of the burden. That man is living to-day and he will probably read my speech to-morrow. It will not be my fault if he does not. I say that if any codification of the law is to be done or any new Act introduced, there should be an attempt made to cheapen the cost of cases even under the Compensation Act as simplified to-day.
I have a kind word for the medical gentlemen. I remember a case, typical of hundreds of cases, which came before the Cardiff County Court when the late Judge Owen presided. In this case a man was injured in the back very badly. An award was made and he was getting compensation. Then the other side applied to the County Court for review, and they said the man was a malingerer. He had to appear before the judge, and they had secured two eminent doctors to prove that the man was not suffering from lumbago but suffering from the injury he received. The very morning the case was to be tried I was informed that a third eminent physician had been obtained to give further evidence on the
other side. Of course, I was not to be beaten. I went to look for another eminent surgeon, and I found one. But before he would look at the man he said, "I want 10 guineas." "Well," I said, "you can trust me." But he was a Welshman, and he said "No." I had great difficulty and trouble in getting the money, but it was paid. The man was examined and the surgeon went into Court. Therefore, in order to decide whether this man was malingering or suffering from lumbago or suffering from his injuries, two firms of solicitors were employed, one on each side, two eminent barristers, one of whom, now dead, became a well-known judge, and six medical men—three to prove the man was a malingerer and the other three to prove that the first three doctors were not telling the truth. I am glad to say that Judge Owen, when he had heard the doctors, said. "You can all go away. You gentlemen do not come here to help the Court, but, like the solicitors and barristers, you come here to help your clients. "Incidentally, I should say, we won our case. I think that kind of thing ought not to be. How could that man, if he had been alone, have conducted the case or raised money sufficient to give him a fair defence? It was impossible.
The whole circumstances surrounding the administration of the Compensation Act as it stands to-day are full of difficulties. I should like to say a word about that bartering with the injured men. I have vividly in my mind now one poor man, crushed and broken and unable really to understand what it was all about, and the insurance tout going and jingling 10 pounds before him—the wife hungry, the children hungry, and the anxiety about the rent, because of the time they had to wait till the case was heard—and he says, "Take these 10 pounds and settle your case." The temptation is great, it is overwhelming, and the man is tempted to accept, not knowing that he is depriving himself of his legal right to prove his case. It is true that in the case I am quoting now—it is one from my own experience—the judge knew that the man had not been fairly dealt with, and was taken advantage of, but these are defects, they are evils, and whatever codification of the existing law may be brought about as the result of what I am sure will be the decision of this House to-night, whatever alterations or new Bills may be
introduced, these safeguards—gathered from knowledge and experience of the life-work of some of us in trying to help those who cannot help themselves—ought to be inserted so that we may do right by those who are entitled to compensation for themselves and their dependants in the time of need and stress that is upon them.

Mr. MORRIS: I must confess to a certain feeling of disappointment when I heard the hon. Member who moved this Motion say that it does not propose to alter the existing law. I cannot help feeling that no one who has sat in this House to-night, and has heard the speeches that have been delivered, can do otherwise than come to the conclusion that it is not a question of codification, but a question of reform. That great lawyer, Jeremy Bentham, when speaking of codification, referred to it as a means of reform, and I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for St. Helens must have had reform in his mind when he put the word "codification" into this motion. After listening to the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), it does seem to me, and I think it may seem to other Members in this House, that it would be difficult to codify the law, so far as common employment is concerned, and to make it clear to the man in the street; and that it would be better to have common employment eradicated rather than to have it codified and put into any new Act of Parliament. When one turns to the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and when one thinks of 1897, which is a good many years ago—I think I am correct in my recollection in 1897 when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain brought his Bill before this House, he pointed out to the House that the employer had to repair and make good his machinery, and that it was right also, on the same principle, that he should repair and make good, so far as money-could make it good, the human machinery which he employed. Carrying that principle out, that Act, with all its difficulties and some of its anomalies, was passed through this House; and then, in 1906, it was further developed and extended.
There are but three points in the Act of 1906 to which I should like to refer. The first is the question of notice, which
was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for, the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt). I remember, only too vividly, going up to the constituency which my hon. and learned Friend represents, and appearing for a widow whose husband had been injured by an accident in the course of his employment. He had not been paid compensation, and did not understand the question, of compensation; he was too ill. Because he did not understand the question of compensation, he gave no notice of his injury, and it was not until some months later, when he died, that the widow went to the secretary of the trade union and proceedings were started on her behalf and I appeared for her. It was then too late. No notice had been given. The employers pleaded that they were prejudiced, and I can remember to this day the agony of mind and feeling I had when I lost that case and I saw that unfortunate woman, who had practically nothing and, I think, was starving. That question of notice, if we are going to have a codification of the law, must be altered.
There is another thing which most certainly ought to be altered. I noticed that the hon. Member for Norwood, when referring to the Workmen's Compensation Act, pointed out that there were words in it for the protection of the workmen, that in cases of serious injury and in cases of death, although the accident or the injury by accident might have arisen from the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman, that would be no defence to the employer, but because that has been put in and because it is no defence to the employer, those who appear on behalf of the employer have been running and have run, in my view and my submission, to death the defence that the accident does not arise out of the employment. May I give the House one instance? I am thinking of the instance of a man who was at work in a mine and it was his job to charge the shot. There was a rule in the mine that he was not allowed to drill and charge a hole in a place where there was an old hole of some charge that had misfired. As he looked at the face of the working he came across an old hole in a place where a charge had in fact misfired. It is softer and it is easier to drill. He was a human being. You were not dealing with machinery. You were deal-
ing with a man who will take short cuts, a man who will forget the risk, and a man who will do the thing that is easiest and comes first to hand and he took his drill and the old shot down there had not, exploded, and it did explode, and he was killed and his widow took proceedings for compensation. She succeeded before the County Court Judge, sitting as arbitrator, she lost in the Court of Appeal, and she lost in the House of Lords. They said the accident did not arise out of the man's employment. He had been forbidden to do this thing and so it did not arise out of his employment. I cannot imagine how-anyone could come to such a conclusion. It was his employment to do this thing. He had to drill and he had to get the, hole to put the shot in. Because he is told not to do it in this spot or in that way, because he is a human being and takes a short cut, it is said it does not arise out of the employment. The whole of the Workman's Compensation Act is really based on that because the right to compensation arises under the operative words of the Act:
Where an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman 
Some reform or codification, if I may use the word of the Motion, is needed in a case of that kind.
The last thing I want to refer to is something the Mover of the Motion referred to. He said the evil of contracting out is still there. The hon. Member is not quite up to date in his law. The evil of contracting out, after yesterday, is not still there. I remember when this question of contracting out was raised in the year 1912. An unfortunate workman, named Ryan, was injured by an accident. His employer came to him and invited him to go into a public-house, and handed over to him 35s. Ryan signed a receipt and accepted the 35s., and came away with it in his pocket. Some little time afterwards he thought better of it. and started proceedings to recover compensation. He was unsuccessful before the County Court Judge, and he was unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal said that a workman of full age and a workman who was not under disability was capable of entering into a contract of that kind, and they held that taking the 35s, was not contracting out of the Act, and did not come within
these words, which are at the end of Section 3:
Saving as aforesaid, the provisions of this Act shall apply, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary 
I was unfortunate enough to have to argue in the Court of Appeal, and I regret to say that the Court laughed me to scorn when I said that the payment of that 35s. was a contract, and a contract contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. That was in 1912. Since then workman after workman have been tempted with sums of money and have lost their rights under the Act of Parliament. Yesterday, however, by a majority in the House of Lords, that decision has been reversed, and the House of Lords have now held that you can have no contracts, even by a workman of full age, which would take him out of the rights and privileges of the Act of Parliament.
We do not want to codify an Act of Parliament of that sort. I do not say that it is ill-drawn, but it cannot be well drawn if three Judges of the Court of Appeal can take one view of it, and then 11 years later the House of Lords take another view. We do not want to codify that Act. Although I am heart and soul with the Resolution, it is only upon the wider ground that if we get codification we can also have reform.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: The last speaker has said much that I wanted to say. When I looked at the Resolution I regretted that it was drawn so narrowly and so circumscribed, but you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed a very wide discussion, and I am very much obliged to you for that. I am much more concerned about a new Compensation Bill than I am about codifying anything that we have at the present time. We can codify as much as we like, but is will not alter the hardships that have been spoken of to-night, nor will it put right those ridiculous decisions which have been given. There is not a single line in the existing Compensation Acts which has not been contested by one side or the other. If you are going to codify anything at all, the only thing left would be the name of the Act of Parliament. The thing to codify would be the decisions of the Judges. We have been told that they run into many volumes. What we want
is a new comprehensive Compensation Bill that will bring together all these things in an intelligent form. I hope that the Home Secretary will not merely reply on the circumscribed Resolution that has been moved to-night.
What is the intention of the Government in relation to a new Compensation Bill? We were promised that in the last Parliament. They set up a Commission with a view to bringing in a new Bill, but what they did was to kill time until they got into bad times, and then they said that they could not accept the findings of the Commission. I should be glad to know what the intentions of the Government are, and if there is any hope of a new Compensation Bill. Codifying is no good. It has been contested again and again, until there is nothing left in any of these Acts of Parliament that is any good. We want a new comprehensive Bill, and I would ask the Home Secretary to state what are the intentions of the Government.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): Like the Mover of the Resolution, I am quite ignorant of the law, and as a layman I took much the same point of view as he does, but the Debate has gone over a very much wider range than the words of the Resolution seem to me to cover. It has been a very interesting Debate, but I have been asked several questions which I think a little premature about what is going to be contained in the Workmen's Compensation Bill which the Government hope to introduce shortly. I hope that we shall be able to make some improvements. I have no doubt that we shall not go far enough to please a great number of hon. Members in this House, but there are certain points which require to be dealt with immediately, and we hope to do that. After the, speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion we had learned dissertations from several hon. and learned Members which, as they proceeded, made one feel how frightfully difficult the whole question was, and what a task it was for any Government to undertake to sift it all for codification.
That is a task which cannot be very lightly undertaken, though I think it ought to be undertaken, and in due time accomplished, but first of all we must introduce the Rill which is urgently re-
quired at the present moment, and when that is passed, as I hope it may be, then I hope that we can devote our attention to some kind of consolidation or codification of the various Measures which concern this particular kind of legislation. I do not think that you can codify the Employers' Liability Act with the Workmen's Compensation Act, but there are Measures dealing with workmen's compensation which I think might very well be consolidated. The Employers' Liability Act is falling almost into disuse. It is being largely superseded by the Workmen's Compensation Act procedure, not only because it is a cheaper and more certain procedure, but because the benefits under it are really better. There is the attraction in the Employers' Liability Act of a lump sum, but if you took the actual value of that lump sum I do not think that it would be found to be as good value as the benefit which could be got, under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
I have been surprised to find that the Employers' Liability Act has fallen into disuse, In the year 1898, the year after it came into force, the number of actions under this Act was 1,879. In 1908 the number had fallen to 405. In 1918 the number was 63, and in 1921, the last year for which I have figures, the number was only 27. That, I think, shows clearly that there are many more objections from a workman's point of view to proceeding under that Act than there are to proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am entirely in sympathy with the intentions of this Motion. I cannot say now what will be the provisions of the amending Bill which I hope to introduce soon after the Recess, but I hope that they will be received as an instalment of what is required, and that later on we may proceed to some Measure which will clarify and consolidate the various Acts. I do not suppose that we shall go to a Division on this Motion, but if we do I shall certainly support the hon. Member who moved it.

Resolved,
That, in view of the confusion due to the existence of several Acts of Parliament dealing with compensation for injury to workmen, this House is of opinion that any Bill dealing with workmen's compensation introduced by the Government should contain provisions for codifying the Law.

ROADS (CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE).

Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move,
That steps should be taken to remedy the state of unemployment existing in the granite quarrying industry, seeing that during 1922 156,800 tons of broken granite, of a value of £171,320, were imported into this country from Belgium and France, and used by local authorities in this country, whereas all granite required for roads can be obtained in this country at no additional cost and would give considerable employment in the broken granite trade, the labour being some 50 per cent. of the value of the material.
At this late hour I do not know whether I can deal adequately with the subject of this Motion, it relates entirely to the use of broken granite for road surfaces, and does not apply in any way to curbs or sets or any of the granite which is used for purposes other than road surfaces. The main point I wish to make is that there is a very large quantity of foreign granite being imported into this country, largely from Belgium and France, and some quantity from Norway. I do not want to be hostile in any way to Belgium and France, but I feel that there is a grave injustice to our own countrymen, when there is so much unemployment in the quarrying trade, and when our country can provide granite equal in quality and quantity to that which we get from abroad. Further, there is no saving in using the foreign material. Those who are supplying that material are able to make a much larger profit than our own people would make, because the rate of exchange helps them. There is something more to be said for using our own material. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, let me say at the outset that I have no financial interest of any kind in any quarry: I have not a share or a shilling invested in any quarry, granite or otherwise. Therefore. I cannot be said to take up this question because of my own pocket, or the pockets of those for whom I am speaking.
I put down a question on this subject some time ago. I had heard of, and I had seen foreign granite coming in and I was interested to know why foreign granite should be imported when we have so much of our own. The present Postmaster-General answered the question and stated the quantities of granite which have come from Belgium to France. My attention was particularly drawn to this
matter by seeing at Richborough some extraordinarily large barges which were brought across filled with broken granite. This is being used on roads in Kent and adjoining counties. The amount of granite which is being used from our own quarries in this country at present is something like 2,000,000 tons less than in 1913–1914. That is a very serious diminution, especially remembering the very large quantity in excess of 1913–1914 which should be in use on roads at the present time, when the taxation on motors is very largely applied to the maintenance of roads. The larger quantity of the foreign granite in use is the Quenast granite which comes from Belgium. The roost extraordinary thing about this granite is that it finds its way into this country and is sold principally by a firm calling itself the London Granite Company. Many local authorities, I believe, think they are purchasing British granite because they buy it from the London Granite Company. They are the people, who deliver this stone. I do not say anything about that—they are quite right, if they would only trade as the Belgian Granite Company or the Quenast Granite Company, but I think there is reason for complaint that they should call themselves the London Granite Company and thereby mislead people into thinking that it is British granite. As to price, I find that Kensington—the Royal Borough of Kensington—is using Quenast granite, and whereas in their contract the price is 22s. 11d., the price of Guernsey granite is 22s. l0d. I cannot conceive why they should go out of their way to use foreign granite when they can get equally good material for a penny per ton less. The rate of exchange makes it easy for foreign firms to keep within a few pence per ton of our own people. If there was a difference of four or five shillings per ton there might be something in it, but as the foreign price is practically the same as that at which our own people can produce and supply the granite, it is very strange that British people should accept this granite. I am not finding fault with the quality even of the Quenast granite. It is probably as good or nearly as good as the British granite, if any foreign article can be as good as a British article. I find that in Uckfield, Sussex, they have been buying this Quenast granite from the London Granite Company at 25s. 6d. per ton, whereas they have had British
granite quoted them at 21s. 5d. to 22s. 9d. a ton. That is another of those extraordinary things that one cannot understand Again, at Chingford, while they have foreign granite at 22s. 2d., there is some of our granite which they have had offered them at 21s. 8d. What I want to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is that I think, at a time like the present, when there is so much unemployment and they are giving large grants for road construction by the unemployed, and also out of the motor car taxation fund, our local authorities should be requested to use British granite. British granite is distributed almost evenly over the whole of the country. There is plenty of Scottish granite; there is North Western. Cum berland and Westmoreland; there is the Welsh granite, and I am sure our Welsh friends will agree that there is some very good granite in Wales; there is the Western, comprising the Clee Hills district, South Shropshire, Gloucestershire, and Somersetshire; there is the Cornish group; there is the Midland group, principally in Leicestershire and Yorkshire; the North Eastern, Durham, and Northumberland; and there are the Channel Islands, which, I suppose, are absolutely granite from start to finish, and which send into this country some of the best granite for road making that we use. There, is also some reason at the present time, I think, why we should give them a preference, because the Government are asking them to make a contribution to Imperial funds, and if we are going to spoil their trade by using foreign granite, I can quite imagine them turning round and saying: "Under these circumstances, can you expect a contribution?"

Mr. S. WALSH: We shall have to pay for it.

Mr. LORDEN: We have got to pay for it, certainly, but do you expect to get anything without paying for it? I am not suggesting that you should not pay even the foreigner for it. The granite industry in the Channel Islands is the second largest industry that they have and I understand that their quarry people are not nearly fully employed. It certainly behoves us, who are asking them to make a contribution, to endeavour to foster their trade. I have already mentioned the foreign granite which is being brought across to Rich-
borough and other ports and used in the various South Eastern and similar counties. The principal culprits using this foreign stone are East and West Sussex, Kent, some parts of Surrey, East and West Suffolk, Essex, and many of the urban and rural district councils. As I have mentioned, even some of the London boroughs are using this material.

Mr. WALSH: Could they not be deported?

Mr. LORDEN: I hope I have shown enough at the moment to ensure that some notice will be taken of this question, and some effort made to use British material where it is equal to or better than foreign granite. Not only should British material be used, but now, when there is unemployment in most industries and in the quarrying trade, we ought to use British material. I urge upon the Government—the Minister of Health might also help in this direction—that when the various local authorities are placing contracts for granite, they should be asked to give the preference, if any, to British material.

Mr. DUNCAN: And to Good Old Scotland.

Mr. LORDEN: Yes, and to Good Old Scotland. There is some good granite there.

Mr. POTTS: On a point of Order. I think the hon. Member is leaving the House short of something. He ought to tell the House exactly—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. LORDEN: There is no doubt I have left out a good deal. I have had to do so, because my time is so extremely short. It has been necessary, because I want to get an assurance that we shall have some consideration for the use of British granite.

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: I beg to second the Motion.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The House will appreciate that in the six minutes left to me, I cannot deal with this question as I should like, but I will touch on a few points. My hon. Friend suggested that
we should accede to his Motion because unemployment was so rife in the quarrying trade. But unemployment in the quarrying trade is distinctly less than unemployment in most of the other trades of the country to-day. The rate of unemployment is only 7 per cent. compared with 11 per cent. in other trades. Then the hon. Member laid great stress on the fact that last year 157,000 tons of broken granite were imported into this country. He asks the Government to do all it can to urge road authorities to use nothing but granite produced in these Islands. Again I would point out to the House that the problem of this imported granite is really a trivial one compared with the total output of broken granite in this country The hon. Member said that 157,000 tons of granite were imported—

Mr. LORDEN: That is only from Belgium and France.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am only dealing with the Motion on the Paper. Those 157,000 tons compare with between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 tons produced in this country. Therefore, the seriousness of the amount of imported granite, in its effect on unemployment, is really trivial as compared with the serious unemployment in other trades. When yon consider that in the City of Glasgow, alone, there are 80,000 people unemployed, and then we have the hon. Member bringing forward his Motion dealing with some 2,000 unemployed, although I have every sympathy with it, I cannot regard it as so important as many other phases of unemployment with which the House has to deal.
What the House wants to know is the attitude of the Government, and the principle adopted in dealing with this question. Since I have been Parliamentary Secretary, in all cases of tenders in my Department in connection with arterial roads which are controlled directly by the Ministry of Transport, we have always asked for tenders on the basis of the following Clause:
Save with the consent of the Minister in writing under the hand of an Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, no imported material, and no manufactured articles not wholly manufactured in Great Britain, shall be used upon the works. except such materials as can neither he manufactured nor obtained in Great Britain, and for which no suitable substitute can be so manufactured or obtained.
That is, in all arterial works under our control we have nothing but stuff produced in this country, except in the special cases in which the Minister or the Assistant Secretary may think it necessary. We must keep the power to have imported stuff, in order to break a ring. That is absolutely necessary in order to protect the ratepayers of this country.

Mr. S. WALSH: Is there any ring?

Colonel ASHLEY: Of that I have no official knowledge. That is, so far as works over which the Government has direct control are concerned. In respect of road work where the Minister assists the local authorities by a grant, the House will appreciate that local authorities are independent bodies of great power, and that we have to deal with them in a way very different from the way in which we deal with our own contracts. The policy of the Ministry is this, that for the present, and so long as the present acute unemployment lasts, in the absence of very special circumstances which, to my mind, mean rings, local authorities should be urged to place in this country contracts in relation to works, assisted by our grants. We cannot insist that

great corporations shall do certain things. We can only urge them to do them. The House will appreciate that the local authorities are very jealous of their own powers. We are always hearing that beaurocratic control from Whitehall is a thing that they will not tolerate. Therefore, our policy is that, by putting the case of unemployment before them, and putting the case that they must be patriots first and consider the ratepayers afterwards, we hope and trust that what my hon. Friend desires will be brought about, and it has been brought about in the ease of contracts which are directed by my Department.

Question put,
That steps should be taken to remedy the state of unemployment existing in the granite quarrying industry, seeing that during 1922 156,800 tons of broken granite, of a value of £171,320, was imported into this country from Belgium and France, and used by local authorities in this country, whereas all granite required for roads can be obtained in this country at no additional cost and would give considerable employment in the broken granite trade, the labour being some 50 per cent. of the value of the material.

The, House divided: Ayes. 58; Noes, 88.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[11.1 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wllfrid W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Barnston, Major Harry
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sparkes, H. W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devlzes)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Button, H. S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Clayton, G. C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Wallace, Captain E.


Cope, Major William
Lynn, R. J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Courthope. Lieut.-Col. George L.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Crock, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Nall, Major Joseph
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Greene, Lt.-Col. sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)



Greer wood, William (Stockport)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Lorden and Major Birchall.


NOES.


Adams D.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Herriotts, J.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hill, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hinds, John


Bowdler, W. A.
Fairbairn, R. R.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosstey)


Brotherton, J.
Gosling, Harry
Hou ton, John Plowright


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenall, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chapple, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Grundy, T. W.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Duncan, C
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Ede, James Chuter
Hardie, George D.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sullivan, J.


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Thornton, M.


McLaren, Andrew
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Waring, Major Walter


Maxton, James
Saklatvala, S.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Salter, Dr. A.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Murray, R, (Renfrew, Western)
Sexton, James
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Webb, Sidney


O'Grady, Captain James
Shinwell, Emanuel
Welsh, J. C.


Oliver, George Harold
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


Paling, W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Phillipps, Vivian
Stephen, Campbell
Wintringham, Margaret


Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Pringle. W. M. R.
Sturroek, J. Leng
TELLERS FOR THEOES.—




Mr. Amnion and Mr. Nell Maclean.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.